HinesSight

Climate change trends in Oregon discussed at Salem City Club

Truth is preferable to falsehood, for sure. But it can be damn depressing at times. That's how I felt today while listening to a Salem City Club talk about climate change from an Oregon perspective.

The speaker was Erica Fleishmann, Professor, College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, who is the Director of the Climate Change Research Institute (CCRI), a network of researchers and professionals that is housed at Oregon State University in Fleishmann's college.

One of CCRI's missions is to research and monitor the state and regional climate. Every two years CCRI publishes an updated Oregon Climate Assessment. The 2025 assessment can be downloaded via the CCRI web site. There's a two-page Executive Summary. This is the not-so-cheery section on Temperature and Precipitation.

Temperature and precipitation. Oregon’s annual average temperature increased by 2.2°F per century since 1895. Without considerable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, annual temperature in Oregon is projected to increase by at least 5°F by 2074 and 7.6°F by 2100, with the greatest seasonal increases in summer. Precipitation is projected to increase during winter and decrease during summer, and the intensity of heavy winter precipitation events is projected to increase. Furthermore, the proportion of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow is expected to increase. Increases in extreme temperatures contributed to recent revisions of the national Plant Hardiness Zone Map.

This is the section on Drought.

During 18 of the years from 1999–2023, Oregon’s precipitation was below average. The average temperature was warmer than normal in 21 of those years, which contributed to higher rates of evapotranspiration and more-frequent drought. Drought risk likely will increase over the twenty-
first century on the western slopes of the Cascade Range and the southern Coast Range, decrease in the Deschutes and John Day basins in north-central Oregon, and change little elsewhere. Drought risk during summer is likely to increase statewide.

Fleishmann showed some slides that echo the most recent Oregon Climate Assessment. 

The red bars on the chart above indicate periods between 1950 and the present when the annual average temperature in Oregon was greater than the 1950-2014 baseline. It's clear that the early part of this period had mostly blue bars, meaning a temperature less than the baseline, while more recent years have been largely above the baseline.

From here on out, the orange'y shadings show various warming scenarios, with the most likely being an 8 degree increase over the baseline by 2100 in the annual average temperature .

You can see that from 1990 to 2020, Salem averaged 15 days a year with a heat index of 90 degrees or above. The index is a blend of temperature and humidity, but since our summers usually aren't humid, Fleishmann said that the heat index basically is based on temperature.


The projected extreme heat index for 2070-2099, when, thankfully, I'll be dead and gone, shows that Salem is expected to have 53 days a year of 90 degrees or above, over three times what we have now.

Regarding precipitation, there isn't as clear a trend as there is with temperature. There have been more drier than normal years since 2000 compared to wetter than normal years. The long term trend is very uncertain, as shown by the large width of the right side of the slide. By 2100 the most likely scenario is a fairly small increase in annual precipitation, around 7-8 percent.

However, some areas are expected to get an increase in extreme precipitation.

More precipitation is expected to fall as rain rather than snow in those mountainous regions. 

Another slide showed how the causes of wildfires differ in various parts of Oregon. Most wildfires on the west side of the Cascades are caused by humans, while most wildfires on the east side of the Cascades are caused by lightning.

In the Q&A part of the program, Fleishmann said that carbon capture is still in the research and development stage so won't be able to quickly reduce greenhouse gases; that while Oregon is warming, we're better off than some other areas, like Arizona, so may see some climate-caused migration to our state; that while climate change initiatives are being rolled back at the national level, we will continue to stand with like-minded states; that frequent wildfire smoke inhalation has some negative long-term health effects, including premature birth.

If you don't like the record-breaking Oregon heat wave, don't vote for Trump

It's been a rough four days here in the Willamette Valley, as well as in much of the rest of Oregon. Record high temperatures have been set on multiple days in many locations, sometimes breaking previous records by not just a little, but a lot. 

Today it was 104 degrees in Salem, where I live, according to my car's thermometer. Tomorrow is expected to be just as hot, with temperatures in the high 80s and low 90s for the following six days.

This isn't normal. The average high for today in Salem is 82, so we were 22 degrees above average. Global warming plays a significant role in the heat waves that have been hitting Oregon much more frequently recently, according to the state climatologist, Larry O'Neill. 

I saw O'Neill make these remarks on the KGW 11 pm news a few days ago. They were extremely disturbing then, and even more so now, after I've been dealing with temperatures exceeding 100 degrees for the past three days.

I've boldfaced the scariest part of what O'Neill said. 

PORTLAND, Ore. —

If you think the weather in Oregon over the next week is going to be too hot, Larry O'Neill has some bad news for you.

"Right now, this is probably among the coolest climates we'll be in at the rate we're going," he said.

O'Neill is the state climatologist for Oregon, and he said climate change is amplifying heat waves in the state and across the globe.

"Heat waves are a natural part of our climate system, but when they do occur, now they're occurring in a warmer baseline," he said. "Any heat wave that we get, you can kind of think about it as being about 3 degrees Fahrenheit more intense than it would have been had we not been changing the climate."

Climate change has made extreme heat hotter, longer and more frequent.

There's no hard and fast definition of a heat wave, but regardless of what's used as a measuring stick, warm temperatures have been increasing in Oregon.

"The number of days over 90 degrees or the number of days over 100 degrees, whichever way you parse it, these days are happening much more frequently, especially over the last 10 years," O'Neill said.

According to records from the National Weather Service, between 1938 and 2014, Portland saw an average of 12 days per year with temperatures over 90 degrees.

Between 2014 and 2023, that number nearly doubled to an average of 23 days per year.

Over the past 86 years, Portland has recorded 105 days with temperatures over 100 degrees, but 16 of those days have come in just the last four years.

Portland’s current stretch of extreme heat is expected to be notable not just for its temperatures, but for its duration, with forecasts calling for five days of heat at or above 100 degrees. 

Wow. As hot as it has been the past few days, O'Neill says that soon we'll look back at this time in Oregon's climate history as one of the coolest in recent memory, because global warming is going to increase for quite a while no matter what we human do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obviously we'll be better off if those emissions are markedly lowered. That's why it's so important that President Biden's climate change initiatives be continued and, hopefully, increased. 

But Donald Trump has vowed to reverse the progress our country has made in combatting global warming. Trump wants to undo those policies and make things worse by increasing the consumption of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas.

That would be amazingly wrong-headed. It would be a disaster economically, since renewable energy is an increasingly important part of our economy. And it would be a disaster environmentally, since we're already not doing enough to reduce carbon emissions, so moving backward under a Trump administration would be horrendous for both our planet and humanity.

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump this November. His commitment to increase global warming, rather than combat it, is definitely a major reason. 

Some of our oaks are losing all their leaves in early September. Global warming.

We've lived at our home in rural south Salem, Oregon since 1990. In those 33 years, my wife and I have never seen some of the oak trees on our ten mostly natural acres lose all of their leaves in late August and early September.

Repeat, never.

But this is what the area in front of our well house looked like today. It sure seems to be a result of global warming. We didn't get any rain during June, July, and almost all of August. Maybe May also. And it's been considerably hotter than normal. The oaks must be stressed.

Update: Just saw this post from the National Weather Service on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. Supports my thesis. The years 2021, 2022, and 2023 were three of the top five hottest summers in Salem dating back to 1892, with 2014 and 2015 being the other two. 

Usually the oaks lose their leaves after other deciduous trees, not before. This is how part of our Y-shaped driveway appears. That area of our property near the road gets the most sun. The oaks here are the ones losing their leaves.


Close to our house, where there is more shade, the oaks are still green. So this indicates that it isn't any sort of disease that's causing the falling oak leaves. It's heat stress, almost certainly.

This is just one sign, among many, of a dangerously warming world. All over our country, and in other nations, what used to be highly unusual is becoming commonplace as the Earth becomes steadily hotter.

Everybody has their own global warming freakout sign. For me, the falling oak leaves are my latest sign. Sadly, there will be many more so long as temperatures keep rising.

Elemental is a film with wildfire lessons for Oregon

It was purely coincidence, but there was still something wonderfully strange to have Ralph Bloemers, the Executive Producer of Elemental, a gripping documentary about wildfires, talking last Friday night in our living room with my wife and I about the film while we and other neighbors were worried about the Vitae Springs wildfire in south Salem that started that day and had led to a Level 2 (Get Set) evacuation order that extended almost to our neighborhood adjacent to the Ankeny Wildlife Refuge.

Bloemers parked his camper van at our house Friday night since he had to be both at a Friday 7 pm premiere showing of the film at Salem Cinema and a Saturday 10 am showing for survivors of the Santiam Canyon fires. Ralph was a lead attorney for our neighborhood's lengthy fight against a Measure 37 subdivision some years back that Laurel and I led, which is how we came to know him so well.

 

Bloemers talked with us before he headed off to sleep in the van. So while worried about a nearby wildfire, we heard a lot about wildfires. Mostly reassuring messages, since I told Ralph that while we'd done quite a bit of clearing of brush and trees around our house that sits on ten mostly natural acres, we didn't want to cut down some beautiful large firs and white oaks fairly close to the house.

 

Echoing one of the messages of Elemental, Bloemers told us that creating defensible space around a structure is less important than hardening it against wildfire. Key to that hardening is not having bark or other flammable material within six feet of the structure, having fireproof vent screens in place if a house has a crawl space, and either not having gutters or keeping the gutters clear of debris.

 

The movie shows that even a very hot wildfire won't ignite a structure if the fire is over 50 feet away, I recall it was. So it's helpful to have cleared space around a structure. However, often, or usually, embers are the bigger danger to a house. And embers can fly long distances in a wildfire, especially in a strong wind. Thus there's no way a wildfire can be controlled by bare earth, since embers can travel a mile or so, igniting other fires when they land, which then create more embers.

 

This means that wind is worse than trees burning. Yet historically forest management has been viewed as the best way to combat wildfires -- thinning trees, clearcutting, and such. Elemental features persuasive interviews with wildfire experts who say that based on solid research, taking trees out of a forest doesn't work well to reduce wildfire risk.

 

In fact, the film shows a researcher talking about an Oregon fire that spread over land that included both clearcuts and old growth forest. The clearcut land fared worst in the fire, because replanting of trees created a monoculture where all the trees were about the same size, making it easy for the fire to spread through crowns close to each other, whereas the old growth forest, being much more diverse, resisted fire to a greater degree. 

 

I've watched a lot of documentaries. Elemental is one of the best I've seen. The original photography is beautiful, and archival footage of the recent Paradise, California fire and other wildfires is expertly blended in. The film starts off by startling the viewer with scenes of the horrendous damage wildfires can do to homes/towns, and concludes by demolishing many of the myths about how wildfires should be controlled.

 

Putting them out sometimes isn't the wisest course of action. Native Americans knew that fire rejuvenates the land. Elemental shows current tribe members reverently setting fire to some of their land, making fire a sacred sacrament of sorts rather than an evil to be fought with brute force.

 

I'm sure that not everybody who sees the film will come away convinced that the policies advocated in Elemental should be followed. However, I'm confident that every viewer will find much in the film to think about, since it takes a much-needed scientific approach to dealing with wildfires. The film is shaping up to be a big success. You can see it at Salem Cinema until September 15.

 

Here's part of an email Ralph Bloemers sent me about the film in his Executive Producer role. (Copying and pasting led to some weirdness in the font sizes.)

 

Over the past five years, National Geographic and PBS Filmmakers Trip Jennings, Sara Quinn and I traveled throughout the West and across the country to visit with the top experts, indigenous fire practitioners and communities impacted by fire. We spent time capturing rebirth in the burn using time lapse and wildlife camera traps, and went into active fires with firefighters and first responders.

 

The result is a new film entitled Elemental - which seeks to present the thinking of top scientists in a visually compelling and engaging way that is directly relevant to most people’s lived experience - and offers solutions to keep our homes and communities safe.

 

Elemental has been entered into dozens of festivals and been selected for fifteen so far - including the Valley Film Festival in LA (August 6), Sonoma (September 21st), the Mill Valley Film Festival in Northern CA (early October), Sedona (Arizona), Doc Society, Greenpoint, Newburyport, Wildlife Conservation and more. 

 

For our Portland Premiere, Senator Jeff Golden, Rep Dacia Grayber and Rep Khanh Pham co hosted the event. Willamette Week named the film it’s Top Pick, it was featured in the Oregonian and on Oregon Public Broadcasting’s Think Out Loud.  

 

We are premiering it across Oregon and other Western states in the coming months, and doing private screenings as well.  The response has been overwhelming. 

Oregon is becoming a climate change hellscape

We're not quite there yet, thankfully. Oregon hasn't transitioned from a wonderful place to live into a hellscape -- "a harshly unpleasant place or environment."

But the handwriting is on the global warming wall.

Today my daughter, Celeste, her husband, Patrick, and my granddaughter, Evelyn, arrived to visit us at the Black Butte Ranch house that we have a 1/4 share in. 

They're from southern California, though Celeste was born and raised in Oregon. 

Chatting with them as we ate pizza and salad outside at the charming Lakeside Bistro, I pointed out how little snow there is on the Three Sisters mountains, and the smoky haze that probably is coming from a giant Klamath County wildfire in southern Oregon.

Both the missing snow and the wildfire are related to the drought conditions facing Oregon,

The snowpack is much below normal, with less precipitation overall and with what does fall in the mountains being abnormally tilted toward rain rather than snow. The Klamath region is in an exceptional drought. The Oregonian story linked to above says:

Trees, brush and other fuel in the area are so dry that embers can immediately ignite them in the full sun and even in the shade, Saalsaa said.

“It’s a very scary fire,” he said. “It’s moving so fast it’s creating its own weather climate.”

The wildfire has grown from 16,814 acres on Thursday to 47,554 acres Friday, 76,897 acres Saturday and 143,607 acres by Sunday morning.

Yesterday I drove from Salem to Black Butte Ranch in central Oregon. This was the first time since the massive Santiam Canyon wildfire in September 2020 that I'd been in that area.

It was shocking to see how little remains of Detroit. I also was surprised at how the views had changed from Highway 22. With so many roadside trees burned in the wildfire, then removed, the landscape was much more open. Detroit Lake was considerably lower than usual, given the drought.

While eating dinner, I told my daughter and her family that this has been a disastrous weather year for our part of Oregon.

First came the wildfires in the early fall of 2020. Here's how I described this photo in a blog post.

Yesterday I took this photo at 9 am while standing in our almost pitch black driveway. 

Smoke from what now is called the Santiam Fire was so thick, blown by the east winds in the direction of Salem, where I live, that the sun was completely obscured. All that could be seen in the sky was an eerie red glow. Later in the day it was still strangely dark, which made me think darkness at noon.

Then came the February 2021 ice storm. We were without electricity for 12 days. Along with so many other people, our property suffered a lot of tree damage. We've still got quite a bit of debris to clean up on our ten rural acres.

Last month Oregon broke all-time high temperature records. And not by a little, by a lot. Salem hit 117 degrees, the same as the record high in Las Vegas.

It's damn clear that the climate is changing due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

The most disturbing thing is, the worst is yet to come. Oregon has endured gigantic wildfires, a highly destructive ice storm, and record-breaking temperatures in just the past ten months.

But by and large the world has just been giving lip service to tackling global warming.

So it looks like things are going to have to get much worse before politicians, policy-makers, and the general public wake up to the need to dramatically alter humanity's carbon footprint.

Fireworks should be shunned like cigarettes are

I'm not delusional. I don't believe fireworks are going to be banned anytime soon.

Heck, here in Salem, Oregon, the City Manager ignored pleas from the public and several city councilors to ban the use of fireworks this year given a severe drought condition and recent record-breaking high temperatures.

But I'm hopeful that with enough citizen education, the downside of fireworks will be understood so well, anyone setting them off on or around the Fourth of July will be viewed by most people with the same don't you know better attitude a cigarette smoker is these days.

I've been familiar with the obvious problems fireworks cause. 

Like, fires. 

Fireworks started an estimated 19,500 fires in 2018, including 1,900 structure fires, 500 vehicle fires, and 17,100 outside and other fires. These fires caused five deaths, 46 civilian injuries, and $105 million in direct property damage.  

And trauma to pets. We've had dogs who were terrified of fireworks.

Many people enjoy the booming sounds and flashing lights of fireworks, but they can be terrifying and overwhelming for pets⁠—and possibly hazardous.

On the Fourth of July, many pets become so frightened by the noise and commotion of fireworks that they run from otherwise familiar environments and people, and sadly become lost. 

Along with scaring wildlife. 

As we enjoy the bright colors and thunderous explosions, it's easy to overlook the impact to wildlife around us. We know what to expect, but wildlife don’t. The abrupt lights and sounds are often seen as a threat by nesting bald eagles and easily startle great blue herons and other colonial nesting birds.

The shock of fireworks can cause wildlife to flee, ending up in unexpected areas or roadways, flying into buildings and other obstacles, and even abandoning nests, leaving young vulnerable to predators. The threat to wildlife doesn’t stop at startling lights and sounds; fireworks also have the potential of starting wildfires, directly affecting wildlife and destroying essential habitat. Litter from firecrackers, bottle rockets and other explosives can be choking hazards for wildlife and may be toxic if ingested.

But when I Googled "why fireworks are bad" I learned that they're toxic, something I hadn't realized before.

Fireworks create highly toxic gases and pollutants that poison the air, the water and the soil, making them toxic to birds, wildlife, pets, livestock — and people — but there are environmentally-friendly alternatives available.

For some strange reason, people around the world have decided that the best way to mark important holidays and events is to have a public fireworks show. We choose to celebrate the birth of a New Year, the freedom of our nation, the triumph of good over evil, by blowing things up.

Most of us are aware that fireworks are dangerous: we either know someone, or know of someone, who ended up in the hospital emergency room due to fireworks, but most people are completely unaware of the more insidious environmental damages and health impacts caused by fireworks.

...But how much more of these heavy metals can just one fireworks show add to the atmosphere? Surely, not much? No, not so. A case study found that within 1 hour of fireworks displays, strontium levels in the air increased 120 times, magnesium 22 times, barium 12 times, potassium 11 times, and copper (Cu) 6 times more than the amount already present in the air before the event.

Pollutants released by fireworks travel far from their origin. Several studies revealed that in mild weather, tagged heavy metals used in pyrotechnics traveled 100 km (62 miles) downwind over a two-day period.

Among the pollutants traced were: strontium, vanadium (V), potassium, titanium (Ti), barium, copper, lead, magnesium, aluminum (Al) and zinc (Zn). These heavy metals add to the toxic pollution in the air. Further, the environmental impacts of these emissions are not confined to the air because these heavy metals are washed out of the air by rainfall, and accumulate in — and pollute — local watersheds.

I don't know if home-bought fireworks are as environmentally disastrous as professional fireworks displays are. They can't be good for the environment, that's for sure. And obviously they bother a lot of people -- including veterans with PTSD -- plus pets and other animals.

One day, I hope, setting off fireworks will be viewed with the same sort of raised-eyebrow disapproval as smoking a cigarette in a public place is nowadays.

There's plenty of other ways to express patriotism on the Fourth of July. Including becoming a super-patriot, my favored approach. 

Patriotism is way over-rated. At least, the way this word usually is defined makes it highly limiting: love for or devotion to one's country. 

OK. I love the United States. I'm devoted to this country.

I also love...

My neighborhood, Spring Lake Estates
My city, Salem
My county, Marion
My state, Oregon.
My country, United States (as already mentioned)
My continent, North America
My planet, Earth
My galaxy, Milky Way
My universe, which let's call Universe

So I'm super-patriotic.

I love and am devoted to so much more than just my country. Celebrating Independence Day (today!) by focusing on the American flag, fireworks, nationalism, our military, the Founding Fathers (no mothers, apparently) strikes me as an excessive attention to a small slice of what every person in this country should be devoted to.

Volkswagen, please sell a plug-in hybrid Mk8 Golf in the U.S.

I'm conflicted. I love my 2017 VW GTI. Yet I also love our one and only planet Earth and want to do my part to reduce the carbon emissions that are fueling dangerous global warming.

Last Thursday I avidly watched streaming video of the rollout of the eighth generation Golf in Wolfsburg, Germany. Externally it looks pleasingly like the seventh generation Golf, with the same clean lines.

But there are lots of improvements that sound really cool. A VW media release provides details. What got my environmental juices flowing was this section of the release.

Five hybrid drives for the new Golf
With the new Golf, Volkswagen has started a hybrid offensive. As the first model of the brand, the eighth Golf will be available in no less than five hybrid drive versions. Its debut also celebrates 48V technology: a belt starter generator, 48V lithium-ion battery and the latest generation of efficient TSI engines form a new mild hybrid drive in the eTSI. Tangible benefits: consumption has been cut by up to 10% (on the basis of WLTP) and the vehicle is extremely agile and comfortable when moving off. Volkswagen will offer the Golf in three eTSI output stages: 81 kW / 110 PS, 96 kW / 130 PS and 110 kW / 150 PS.

The eighth generation of the best-seller will also be available as two plug-in hybrid drive variants. A new efficiency version generates 150 kW / 204 PS while the very sporty GTE delivers 180 kW / 245 PS. Both Golf versions with plug-in hybrid drives will launch with a new 13 kWh lithium-ion battery on board that enables larger electrically powered ranges of approximately 60 kilometres, and temporarily turns the Golf into a zero-emissions vehicle.

My wife and I have leased three Chevy Volts, a plug-in hybrid that had about 50 miles of range in its most recent version. (Chevolet has discontinued the Volt, sadly.)

I didn't like the Volt nearly as much as my wife did, preferring my VW GTI, but the idea of being able to drive on pure electric power around town, then have a limitless gasoline range for occasional longer trips really appealed to both of us.

VW says in the media release that the Golf plug-in hybrids will have a 60 km range, which is 37 miles. I'd buy either an eighth generation regular Golf or a Golf GTI instantly if it was a plug-in hybrid. Problem is, VW has only announced that the GTI and high performance R models will be sold in the United States.

And so far as I know, there's been no announcement of whether any of the five hybrid drives will make it to this country. I sure hope so. The only glimmer of hope I've been able to discern in my Googling of Golf Mk8 is a Green Car Reports story, "VW Golf unveiled: no more EV, more plug-in options, but diesel remains." 

The gas-powered models—a 1.0-liter, 1.5-liter, or 2.0-liter—will be the most popular among buyers around the world, and only the 2.0-liter is slated to reach U.S. shores officially. VW hinted that a plug-in hybrid version of the Golf could make it to the States—potentially a GTE version—but hasn't yet confirmed any plans.

...The plug-in hybrid powertrains pair a 1.4-liter turbo-4 to an electric drive motor and 13-kwh lithium-ion battery. Although a range-focused version will be sold overseas, a performance-minded GTE will be sold alongside those versions—and perhaps the U.S.

Well, at least the story says "potentially" and "perhaps" in regard to a plug-in hybrid Golf being sold in the United States. I sure hope this happens. So much so, yesterday I sent this email to a media relations person in Germany whose name and email address appeared in media releases that popped up in my VW twitter feed.

Mr. Schroeder, I’m a happy owner of a 2017 GTI (Autobahn trim) who lives in the United States and follows the VW Twitter account. I watched the rollout of the Mk8 Golf last Thursday with avid attention.

Of course, no mention was made of the Mk8 GTI. But I loved that VW is making a plug-in hybrid version of the new Golf. Unfortunately, only the GTI and R versions appear to be coming to the United States, and there’s no word as to whether either will be available as a plug-in hybrid.

 

I hope we in the U.S. get a plug-in Golf. I love my GTI, but I also love the environment. I’m 71 and don’t have all that many years left to do my part to slow or stop global warming.

 

I’ve made a deposit on the upcoming Tesla Model Y, which will offer AWD, high performance, and zero emissions. So sometime next year I’ll have to decide between the Model Y and some other vehicle. 

 

Yes, I realize VW has the Crozz coming to the United States. But given Tesla’s proven history with electric cars, and VW’s lack of history, by comparison, it’d be difficult for me to buy the Crozz over the Model Y. However, if VW offered a plug-in hybrid GTI with 30-40 miles of range, I’d buy it instantly.

 

My wife and I have leased three Chevy Volts, so we’re familiar with the advantages of plug-in hybrids. Almost all of our driving can be done on pure electric power, while a gasoline engine takes away the range anxiety of long distance drives. 

 

Anyway, since I noted your name as a media contact (I have a blog where I write about cars occasionally, so I guess I’m “media”), I wanted to express these thoughts to you. The Mk8 Golf looks to be a great car. I just am hoping that it comes to the United States in a plug-in hybrid version. I think you’d sell a lot of them to environmentally conscious people like me.

 

     — Brian Hines

Electric vehicles are the future in Oregon

I walked into today's Salem City Club program, "Charging Ahead: Is Oregon Ready for Electric Vehicles?," feeling positive about electric cars. I walked out feeling super excited about them. 

Which made me pleased that I'd put down a $2,500 deposit on the upcoming Tesla Model Y, a hatchback version of the popular Model 3 that I'm seeing a lot of here in Salem. 

Jessica Reichers got my enthusiasm ramped up with her kick-off presentation. She's with the Oregon Department of Energy. 

She noted that there's a lot of jargon associated with electric vehicles, EVs. ZEVs are zero emission vehicles. They don't emit any exhaust gas, so a fully electric vehicle would be a ZEV. As would a bicycle, of course. Reichers described four types of electric vehicles.

(1) Fuel cell. (no fueling stations exist in Oregon so far)
(2) Battery electric. (no gas engine at all)
(3) Plug-in hybrid. (goes for a while on electricity, then shifts to gas engine/generator)
(4) Hybrid. (doesn't need plugging in)

These are some of the advantages of fully electric vehicles. Plug-in hybrids, such as the Chevy Volt (we've leased three Volts) share the advantages to a large extent. 

The main disadvantage for many people is range anxiety, worrying you will run out of battery power on the road. Plug-in hybrids and hybrids don't have that worry, but they also aren't zero emission. With many more ZEVs expected in Oregon, our state has to keep up with the need for charging stations. 

Currently we have enough, according to Reichers. Tesla owners are especially fortunate, since Tesla has Superchargers on major highways that can charge a vehicle much more rapidly than Level 2 (240 volt) chargers. Many people get by with using regular 120 volt charging overnight at home.

For me, as for most people attracted to electric vehicles, a prime motivation is acting to preserve our one and only planet Earth for human habitation. Global warming produced by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is real, getting worse, and poses a major threat to civilization. 

This slide showed the environmental benefits of electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the biggest contributor to Oregon's greenhouse gas emissions.

Many electric vehicles qualify for the $7,500 federal tax credit. Of course, you have to pay at least that much in federal taxes to benefit from it. Some electric car manufacturers, such as Tesla, have sold so many vehicles, the federal tax credit has gone away wholly or in large part. This example is for an all-electric Hyundai that qualifies for several incentives.

Fuel is another obvious source of savings, since electricity here in Oregon is quite inexpensive compared to some other parts of the country.

Yes, part of the electricity in our state comes from fossil fuel sources, coal and natural gas. This slide shows how PGE, Pacific Power, and Salem Electric (part of COU/BPA) stack up, carbon emission-wise, if used to power an electric vehicle. All are much less carbon-intensive than an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle.

The other City Club presenter was Joe Wachunas, an electric vehicle information consultant with FORTH, a non-profit based in Portland whose web site has a lot of valuable information. FORTH offers test drives of electric vehicles. 

He showed this mildly-depressing slide of electric vehicles as a percentage of new car sales. Just 2% nationally, about 4% in Portland, yet 21% in San Jose, California and a whopping 48% in Norway -- which shows that electric cars work just fine in cold weather.

Lastly, this slide debunked a criticism of electric vehicles that I've heard from skeptics. Namely, that the carbon emissions involved in making the car and its battery outweigh the emissions that aren't produced in operating the car. 

Actually, even with battery manufacturing included, the life-cycle global warming emissions for electric cars are less than half of the emissions for a gasoline car.

After the program, we got to see electric vehicles that City Club members had brought to the meeting. There was a good variety: Jaguar iPace, Chevrolet Spark, Chevy Bolt and Volt, Tesla S, Honda Clarity, others I can't remember, and...

City Councilor Chris Hoy's Tesla X. I'd never seen an actual Tesla X, so this was a thrill for me. I got to sit in the driver's seat and peruse the "romantic" mode (or whatever it's called) that features a relaxing fire on the giant touchscreen. 

Even better, Chris demonstrated how his Model X can dance. If anybody you know says that electric cars are boring, show them this video.

 

Salem Climate Strike 2019: my photos, videos, commentary

Here's photos and videos I took at today's student-organized Salem Climate Strike event on the steps of the Capitol building, plus my commentary. Really inspiring to see so many young people standing up for preserving our one and only Earth for human habitation.

Fairview Woods approved by Salem City Council

It was good to see the Salem City Council vote unanimously last night to reject an appeal of the 14.1 acre, 16 lot Fairview Woods development. 

Eric Olsen of Olsen Design & Development has been working on this project for several years. The Woods currently is a heavily treed parcel at the top of the old Fairview Training Center property in south Salem. It's filled with ivy, blackberries, and trash left by homeless people and others.

As Olsen discussed at the City Council hearing (I watched via the City of Salem's Facebook feed), The Woods was a difficult design challenge. 

Olsen's Fairview Addition development basically surrounds The Woods. Olsen became interested in the 14 acres when he realized that the owners of the property wanted to develop it, and if he didn't do this, someone else would take control of The Woods and possibly do things with it that weren't desirable for the people who live in Fairview Addition.

So what he came up with was a way to save most of the trees and allow public access to the property by having only 16 lots on the 14 acres -- with the lot sizes ranging from .3 acre to 1.1 acre. Here's a map from the Fairview Woods Refinement Plan.
Download Fairview Woods Refinement Plan

The green dots are trees. The white rectangles are illustrative home sites. The black lines are the private roads in The Woods. Olsen explained that the roads need to be private because if they were public and built to City of Salem standards, their width would require many more trees to be removed, along with wrecking the look and feel of The Woods.

Olsen said that the roads will be shared by vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, as narrow roads at the Black Butte Ranch and Sunriver resorts in central Oregon are. 

The large green area at the top of the curve of a road is a public Oak Park. 

Homeowners in The Woods only will be able to fence in 4,000 square feet of their lot, leaving the rest of the lot open for wildlife to meander through. A Homeowner's Association will help assure that no one cuts down trees unnecessarily. 

A central assertion of the person who filed the appeal of The Woods Refinement Plan that was the subject of last night's hearing was that the Master Plan for the Fairview property needed to be amended to make it compatible with the refinement plan.

But Councilor Tom Andersen, along with others, noted that aside from Pringle Creek Community, all of the development that has occurred on the Fairview property has deviated considerably from the original Master Plan.

Since my wife, Laurel, and I were members of Sustainable Fairview Associates during the time the Master Plan was being worked on, I know that this plan was a rather grandiose vision for the property, not a realistic blueprint for its development.

Laurel and I have been following goings-on at Fairview after we sold our shares in Sustainable Fairview Associates. Fairview Addition appealed to us enough to warrant putting down a deposit on two lots adjacent to The Woods, though we ended up deciding to stick with our non-easycare ten acres in rural south Salem for a while longer.

Now we're interested in Fairview Woods. It's tough to think of moving from where we are, but it's also difficult to envision us staying where we are for the rest of our lives, given that we're both now over 70 (not much over!).

Pleasingly, someone who lives in Fairview Addition testified last night that he surveyed other Fairview Addition residents about what they think of the plan for The Woods. I recall he said that 15 people responded, with 11 in favor of the Fairview Woods Refinement Plan, two neutral, and two opposed. 

The Morningside Neighborhood Association also approves of the plan for The Woods, albeit with some concerns that I believe have been addressed by Olsen Design & Development. 

I feel that Eric Olsen has done an excellent job of balancing the goal of preserving as many trees and as much open space as possible on the 14 acres, with the goal of having this development pencil out financially. My wife and I have talked with Olsen a number of times in recent years. I find him to be an honest, straightforward, caring,, creative developer -- the best kind.

Here's the tree preservation plan for The Woods. Being a proud tree-hugger, I like what I see.

Hopefully it won't be necessary to remove too many additional trees. In part this may happen because the location of the home sites shown on the map above are illustrative, not actual. Regardless, most developments in Salem preserve a much lower percentage of trees, being denser with wider roads.

Earth to Politico: eating meat enlarges a person's carbon footprint

Having been a strict vegetarian since 1970, I've enjoyed almost fifty years of dietary self-satisfaction. (Vegetarians aren't as smug as vegans, but we're close.)

So when I saw a Politico headline today, "Democrats bite on burgers and straws -- and Republicans feast," I anticipated that the article was going to irritate me, which indeed it did.

Politico engaged in some questionable analysis of the lengthy CNN climate forum featuring Democratic presidential candidates. Here's some burger-related observations.

Democrats’ verbal targeting of everything from plastic straws to cheeseburgers is stoking fears among anti-Trump forces that they’re unwittingly playing into Republican culture wars.

...Andrew Yang, in the same [GOP] web ad, said, “We’re going to be OK if the vast majority of the world goes vegetarian immediately.”

“I just don’t even know what to do with ‘Burgergate,’” said Colin Strother, a veteran Democratic strategist from the cattle-rearing state of Texas. “It is such a fringe position that is out of step with an overwhelming majority of Americans — and let us not forget that a pretty wide swath of the country including Texas and the ‘Breadbasket’ are major beef producers.

Well, the plain fact is that eating meat, especially beef, results in much higher carbon emissions than a vegetarian diet.

Here's part of an answer to a question in the August 17, 2019 issue of New Scientist that asked, "From an environmental perspective, is it better to eat imported foods like tofu, quinoa and sweet potato or beef from the farm a few kilometers up the road?

This question is easy to resolve. In a paper in Nature last year, a team led by Timothy Searchinger of Princeton University examined the impact of various foodstuffs in terms of carbon. This shows that protein from beef is 73 times worse than protein from soya.

A kilogram [2.2 pounds] of beef protein has the equivalent carbon emissions of a passenger flying from London to New York and back. The overall carbon cost of a kilogram of beef protein is equivalent to 1250 kg of CO2. Aircraft emissions for long haul flights are roughly 110 grams per passenger per kilometre, and the return distance is 11,170 km -- so 1229 kg of CO2.

However, there are caveats. That's the way of science: things are complex. A simple answer may be true -- beef is much more carbon intensive than tofu -- yet needs some explication. Here's part of what I found via a dive into Google's response to "eating meat carbon emissions."

It's a myth that going vegan or vegetarian is the key to fighting global warming. So says Skeptical Science. (Tagline: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.)

Animal agriculture is responsible for 13–18% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and less in developed countries (e.g. 3% in the USA).  Fossil fuel combustion for energy and transportation is responsible for approximately 64% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and more in developed countries (e.g. 80% in the USA).

...So, animal agriculture and meat consumption are significant contributors to global warming, but far less so than fossil fuel combustion.  Moreover, fossil fuels are an even bigger contributor to the problem in developed countries, which use more energy and have increased livestock production efficiency.

Still, switching from beef to chicken, or better, tofu, reduces dietary carbon a lot. So says a National Geographic story.

Replacing the carbon-heavy beef on your plate with carbon-light chicken will cut your dietary carbon footprint a shocking amount: in half. That’s according to a first-ever national study of U.S. eating habits and their carbon footprints.

...The evidence is clear regarding the need to shift diets to less meat and more plant-based proteins for both health and environmental reasons, says study co-author Martin Heller of the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems at the School for Environment and Sustainability.

Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on our planet. So says a The Guardian story based on research published in the journal Science. 

Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.

The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.

...The analysis also revealed a huge variability between different ways of producing the same food. For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land.

So while Republican deniers of global warming can joke all they want about Democrats wanting to ban burgers, science has the last laugh. Meat-eating isn't good for the planet.

Brown Oregon grass in October -- climate change is very real

Yesterday I learned of a dire climate change report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Today I spread organic lawn fertilizer on parts of our rural yard where the grass is almost always greened up after fall rains.

Not this year. And that's really weird. 

I'm a creature of habit when it comes to fertilizing our yard. Twice a year, spring and fall, I spread organic fertilizer that I buy at Lowe's on both our shrubs/trees and our lawn.

Some of the grass around our house is watered with a sprinkler system. Some isn't. We've lived on our ten acres in rural South Salem for 28 years. I can't recall a year when the non-watered grass was as barren and brown at this time in October as it was today. 

This is an area outside our front door that has always, so far as I can remember, been green this time of year. But not now, not in 2018. I held off until today on spreading the lawn fertilizer, which I usually do in September, because there's been almost no rain, and the fertilizer needs to be watered in to do any good, obviously. 

Almost all of Oregon (86%) is in either severe or extreme drought as of October 2. And there's been little rain in the last week. Now, I realize that most people who live in cities aren't as directly aware of this as those of us who live in the country, and have wells. 

But as I was spreading lawn fertilizer on parts of our yard that were super-dry (another usually grassy area by our driveway is shown above), I couldn't help thinking about the IPCC report that I'd read about in the New York Times. 

A landmark report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on climate change paints a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought and says that avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has “no documented historic precedent.”

The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population.

Well, I'm alive right now, and I can say that Oregon's climate has changed a lot during the 47 years I've lived in my much-beloved state. The summers are drier and hotter. The winters are milder and warmer. I recall it raining for weeks on end in the fall and winter. That's rare now.

What irks me is that even if everybody accepted the science of climate change, it still would be tough to prevent the disastrous effects on human civilization that global warming is producing. But climate change deniers are everywhere, even here in green, liberal Oregon.

There are several climate change deniers on a "Stakeholder Advisory Committee" charged with helping guide an update to Salem's Comprehensive Plan which describes how our city will develop -- notably Sam Brentano, a Marion County commissioner. 

I hope that if Brentano or other climate change deniers start to raise doubts about the need for Salem to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, most members of the committee will say, "Stop! Just stop! You're wrong, and we're not going to put up with scientific ignorance, especially if it is willful ignorance."

Our yard is a microcosm of the global warming macrocosm. The bottom of this  photo shows a part of our lawn that doesn't get irrigated by a sprinkler. It's dry as a bone, though as noted before, usually by this time of year the grass is green. Another part of our lawn gets watered, so it looks fine -- no problem. 

But that "no problem" masks the reality of Oregon's drought. When I raised my iPhone's camera to another viewpoint, our yard looks wonderfully normal -- green and beautiful.

That's what so worrisome about global warming deniers. Because climate change is a slow-moving train wreck, not an instant dramatic disaster, it is possible to avert our eyes from the danger signs of a steadily warming world. 

Today I couldn't do that, as I spread lawn fertilizer on parts of our yard that were much drier than usual. I just hope many more people have their eyes opened to the reality of climate change before it is too late.

Here's a link to the actual IPCC report. And here's FAQs for those who don't want to read the whole report.

In a warming world, we're all responsible for Hurricane Florence

Living as I do on the West Coast, in Oregon to be exact, it's tempting for me to be thankful that we don't get nasty hurricanes like Florence, which has dumped an astounding amount of rain on North Carolina and neighboring states, and killed 11 people so far.

Florence already has set rainfall records and left tens of thousands of people in shelters and more than 1 million homes without power. Officials confirmed at least 11 deaths, including one Saturday in South Carolina.

But Gov. Roy Cooper (D) and other officials repeatedly warned Saturday that although people might think the worst of the storm is over, the volume of rainwater it will drop in the coming days will cause flooding not seen in a generation — if ever.

But actually I should be feeling more emotions than just thankfulness. Like, sadness, guilt, and anger. Why? Because scientists know that human-caused global warming is making storms like Florence considerably more powerful, and hence, more deadly.

Since I'm a human who has contributed to rising greenhouse gas emissions by the simple fact of living in an industrialized nation for the past 69 years, I feel sadness because people are dying from weather events exacerbated by higher temperatures. 

I feel guilt because I know that even though my wife and I do our best to live in an environmentally-wise manner, there's more that we could and should have done to reduce our personal carbon footprint.

And I feel anger because I know that our country's president, Donald Trump, is doing his best to dismantle Obama-era efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, including withdrawing from the Paris climate change accord.

Before I talk about what I, and everybody else who cares about our one and only Planet Earth, should do to help reduce the chance of more storms like Hurricane Florence, I need to address people reading this blog post who question whether global warming really has made Florence more deadly and destructive than it would have been otherwise.

Here's some links, and excerpts from each, for your perusal:

Hurricane Florence is a climate change triple threat
In this sense, the sometimes fractious debate about whether we’ll see more or fewer storms in a warmer world is somewhat misplaced. What matters is that there is a consensus we’ll see stronger and worse flood-producing storms – and, in fact, we’re seeing them already. That brings us to Hurricane Florence: a climatologically-amplified triple threat.

...Some headlines have reported that Florence is a warning of what is to come. But in reality, it is a warning of what has already arrived. Far worse is to come if we don’t get serious, in a hurry, about acting on climate change.

Global warming didn't cause Florence, scientists say, but it's making hurricanes more intense
A warmer world makes for nastier hurricanes. They are wetter, possess more energy and intensify faster. Their storm surges are more destructive because climate change has already made the seas rise. And lately, the storms seem to be stalling more often and thus dumping more rain.

Hurricane Florence's Slow Speed is Ominous
According to a paper published earlier this year in the scientific journal Nature, hurricanes are now moving more slowly across the Earth than they once did. From 1949 to 2016, the speed of tropical cyclones worldwide over land decreased by 10 percent.

In the North Atlantic, where both Harvey and Florence originated, hurricanes have slowed some 20 percent in their track speed. (This study did not account for 2017’s slow storms, including Harvey.)

“Storms can get worse without getting more intense” if they’re slow moving, James Kossin, the author of that paper and an atmospheric research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told me at the time.

...The paper did not formally attribute this effect to human-caused climate change, but scientists have long hypothesized that tropical cyclones will move more slowly in a warmer world. That’s because a warmer world will have more stagnant, slow-moving air masses, which will stall out storms of all types around the world.

A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed
As the Earth’s atmosphere warms, the atmospheric circulation changes. These changes vary by region and time of year, but there is evidence that anthropogenic warming causes a general weakening of summertime tropical circulation.

...The unprecedented rainfall totals associated with the ‘stall’ of Hurricane Harvey over Texas in 2017 provide a notable example of the relationship between regional rainfall amounts and tropical-cyclone translation speed.

Hopefully these stories have convinced any global warming skeptics perusing this post that climate change is making storms like Florence more powerful. Or at least that this is such a distinct possibility, it makes sense to reduce greenhouse gas emissions just in case.

(An analogy: if you smoke cigarettes, science can't say for sure that you will get lung cancer. But science can say that if you smoke, your chance of getting lung cancer is much higher than it would be if you didn't smoke. Thus most people these days have decided not to smoke, being aware of the probabilities.)

What to do, then? Here's some suggestions.

(1) Vote for Democrats. Facts shouldn't have a liberal bias, as the saying goes. Unfortunately, though, they do -- since most Republican politicians at both the federal and state level have become either global warming deniers, or global warming minimizers. Meaning, they either say that global warming isn't happening, or if it is, there isn't much we can do about it.

So make sure that you cast a vote for Democrats in the upcoming mid-term election. And after that, in the 2020 presidential-year election. It isn't much of an exaggeration to say that the habitability of our planet for humans depends on this, given the degree to which the United States contributes to greenhouse gas pollution.

(2) Make global warming a local issue. Where I live, Salem, Oregon, recently elected progressives on the City Council were successful in making a citywide greenhouse gas inventory part of the Strategic Plan that guides City Hall priorities.

The progressives also have stalled an unwise proposal for a billion dollar Third Bridge across the Willamette River that would increase considerably carbon emissions in Salem. Now the bridge idea needs to be killed off entirely by the City Council and better transportation options embraced.

(3) Do little things, since they add up to big things. It's easy to become disheartened when the Trump administration, Big Oil, and other despoilers of the environment are working against efforts to slow down global warming.

But there are many bright spots, including a report that "a group of almost 400 of the world’s leading investors, controlling over $30tn [trillion] (£23tn) in assets, have agreed to work together to back initiatives to combat climate change and help meet the objectives of the Paris agreement."

That's great. 

However, everybody who isn't one of the world's leading investors also can do something to reduce their carbon footprint. Ride a bike more. Drive less. Become a vegetarian or vegan. Recycle. Instead of flying, vacation close to home. (Check out "25+ Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint.")

Smoky air in Salem points to global warming as culprit

Here's a not-so-cheery air quality map for the Pacific Northwest. In two words, it sucks.

When I set off for a dog walk about an hour ago, the setting sun was as red as the Unhealthy coded color for most of Oregon, including Salem, where I live. 

There aren't any wildfires in our immediate area. But smoke is drifting into the Willamette Valley from British Columbia and Eastern Washington.

Wildfire smoke has been an annoying aspect of summers in Oregon for the past few years. It wasn't always this way. I've lived in Oregon since 1971. Summers are much hotter and drier than they used to be. Climate change is the culprit.

Which means climate change, a.k.a. global warming, is the main reason wildfires are burning considerably more fiercely and more often than they used to. This is a fact, no matter what the clueless Secretary of Interior, Ryan Zinke, says about "environmental terrorist groups" being the problem. 

Here's a quote from the Washington Post story that speaks the truth, not Trumpian propaganda. 

Many took issue with Zinke's refusal to acknowledge that climate change is a major factor in the California fires.

"This has nothing to do with climate change," Zinke told NBC affiliate KCRA this month. "This has to do with active forest management."

Research shows that human-caused climate change is a primary factor behind the recent increase in fire severity. A 2016 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the heat and drought brought about by climate change was responsible for doubling the amount of land burned in the western U.S. between 1984 and 2015.

"There is a broad effort to deny the science of climate change and its links to the horrible wildfires in California and it’s just not accurate," Leah C. Stokes, professor of environmental and political science at UC Santa Barbara, told the Post.

My wife and I have lived in rural south Salem since 1990. The tree changes in our neighborhood are undeniable. Douglas firs are turning brown and dying at a rapid rate. Here's some photos I took on today's dog walk.

It's infuriating that Donald Trump and his fellow global-warming-denying lackeys are reversing Obama-era policies aimed at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are creating the hotter and drier conditions which fuel fires and kill trees. 

And it isn't just the folks in Washington D.C. who are to blame. I'm pleased to live in a city that voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, but 38% of Salem voters cast a ballot for Trump -- so they're complicit in creating the smoky air that appears to be with us for many years to come.

For sure, 2020 can't come soon enough for me and my wife. The quicker our country gets rid of Trump and his cronies, the quicker we can get back to taking strong steps to keep our one and only Planet Earth habitable for humans. 

Messiness of recycling talked about at Salem City Club today

Along with most people, I already was aware of the basic changes to the Marion County recycling program prior to today’s Salem City Club program, “What’s Up With Recycling?”

But the expert speakers provided a lot of useful background information, plus some good tips for dealing with the changes. 

So here’s some of what I remember from the talks by Peter Spendelow, a recycling specialist and materials management policy analyst for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; Will Posegate, the chief operations officer for Garten Services; and Alan Pennington, the Waste Reduction Coordinator for Marion County Public Works and head of the EarthWISE program for the county.

(I didn’t take notes, but my still mostly-functioning senior citizen mind believes that I’ve gotten what follows pretty much right.)

Way back when, the early 1990’s I believe, there was no such thing as co-mingled, or mixed, recycling. People sorted their recycled items themselves. But this resulted in low recycling rates.

Now everything goes in the blue bin and recycling is more popular. Not surprisingly, though, a lot of mistakes are made. 

Posegate said that bowling balls, propane tanks, milk cartons filled with needles, and all kinds of other nasty forbidden stuff show up in the conveyor belts at Garten Services, where employees have to wear gloves and kevlar protection to keep themselves safe.

One employee spends three hours a day cleaning screens on machinery that sorts out paper, but also gets stuck with flattened plastic and other stuff. So we all need to be careful with what we recycle, since our mistakes have to be dealt with by people who already have a really tough job.

The general rule is “When in doubt, throw it out.” An ancillary rule is “When in doubt, find out.” Meaning, for example, while only tin and aluminum cans are recyclable, some Googling will reveal local places that accept scrap metal. 

China’s refusal to stop accepting our poorly sorted-out materials is the main reason for the changes to the Marion County recycling program. It appears this is permanent, since one of the speakers said that China wants a .5% (half a percent) error rate, and the actual rate is much higher — over 10% I recall. 

A big screw-up is putting “plastic film” in the recycling bin. It took me a while to figure out that when the speakers referred to this, they basically were talking about plastic bags. The bags gum up sorting machinery, so they are a major no-no. Return them to stores that have a bin for them. 

Newspapers are one of the more lucrative items for recyclers, as demand is fairly high for them and other forms of paper. (Shredded paper, though, can't be recycled.)

However, we were told that because the Oregonian no longer publishes daily, and the size of newspapers has shrunk as reporting staff have shrunk and advertising has gone elsewhere, newspapers make up a smaller chunk of recycling materials. 

As shown on this handout (click to enlarge), many types of paper and cardboard still can be put in the mixed recycling cart. The biggest change is with plastics, since only bottles and jugs now can be recycled. The numbers on a plastic container no longer have meaning.

A plus, said one of the speakers, is that yogurt containers don’t have to be washed out, since they’re thrown away. Being a daily yogurt consumer, I’ve noticed that convenience. 

My wife and I buy ready-made salad in “clamshell” containers, along with strawberries. These used to be recyclable, though not easily. Previously a neighbor would take clamshell containers to a recycling location in Corvallis, so we’d store them up and give them to her periodically. 

But those days are gone, so we cram the large salad containers into our kitchen trash bag, then fill the clamshell with other garbage. Not ideal, but we’ve entered into a new age of recycling.

Which feels like a significant step backward. 

Hopefully one day future Oregonians will look back on 2018 as a temporary setback for recycling. Perhaps technological advances we can’t foresee from our current vantage point will make recycling super-easy and super-efficient.

Early spring on our property shows need for Oregon cap-and-trade bill

Global warming is real. We humans are causing it. Urgent steps need to be taken to reduce carbon emissions.

These three facts are borne out by some photos I took a few days ago of how vegetation is leafing out much earlier than usual on our ten acres in rural south Salem, Oregon.

We've lived here for 28 years. This is really unusual plant behavior for February 4. The green shoots screamed to me, Global warming is making us do this!

Now, I'm old enough (69) and have lived in Oregon long enough (47 years) to run the risk of sounding like the proverbial geezer talking about the Blizzard of Ought-Eight, when the snow reached as high as grandma's chin.

But I sure do remember when December, January, and February here in the Willamette Valley typically were filled with weeks of solid rain, ice storms, freezing temperatures, and other weather nastiness. 

Such is much less common now. Temperatures are warmer. More precipitation is falling as rain in the mountains rather than snow. We've only had a few days of freezing temperatures. Our daffodils are getting ready to bloom.

Yes, I understand the difference between weather and climate. But I've got almost a half century of experience with western Oregon weather, and there's been changes over those years that certainly are due to global warming.

Which, of course, is caused by carbon pollution. 

Environmentalists, business people, and many others concerned about reducing Oregon's carbon footprint have been working on a cap-and-trade bill that is desperately needed. 

An Oregonian story briefly summarizes what the bill would do:

In addition to creating a limit on greenhouse gas emissions, the plan would require many of Oregon's largest polluters to pay for their emissions by purchasing allowances at an auction. The state would spend the proceeds from the auctions to reduce the financial impact to households, support projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help areas disproportionately impacted by climate change.

What's aggravating, though, is that the same story says that Democrats in the state Senate claim there isn't time in the shorter 2018 legislative session to pass the cap-and-trade bill -- even though Dems control both houses of the legislature and the governor is a Democrat.

So how long is it going to take? And another question: how much time does the world have to reduce carbon emissions? My answers: too long, and no time to waste.

Disturbingly, Governor Kate Brown didn't mention cap-and-trade in her recent State of the State address. Yet pleasingly, Nike has joined the Oregon Business Alliance for Climate, a group supporting the cap-and-trade bill.

Every day I get an email from Brown's re-election campaign asking for a donation.

Earth to Brown, via me: When you start pushing legislators to pass the cap-and-trade bill this year. and promise to sign the bill if it reaches your desk, that's when I'll start to consider contributing additional money to your campaign. 

More misguided cougar and wolf hysteria strikes Oregon

Oh, my! Lock the doors and keep the children inside! A cougar may have killed a house cat in Seaside, Oregon. So all student activities at Seaside Elementary School were moved indoors. 

Which is ridiculous, because while cougars may kill cats (so will dogs, of course, and much more often), a cougar has never killed a human in Oregon. 

As I said in "Danger warning! -- people and dogs sighted in Salem park," what Seaside school authorities really should be concerned about are adult men and family dogs roaming around near the playground.

I've done some research to quantify the relative risk of being killed by (1) a person, (2) a dog, and (3) a cougar. These United States statistics cover 2001-2010, the previous ten years.

There were 162,230 homicides during that decade, an average of 16,223 per year. In 2010, ninety percent of the killers were men, according to the FBI. Fifty-three percent of murder victims were killed by someone they knew; a quarter were slain by a family member.

The lesson: if you spot a man in a park, be fearful. Especially if you know him. Males you've met before are the most dangerous killing creatures any human will ever encounter. 

Dogs are considerably less likely to kill you. Still, 263 people were slain by dogs over the last ten years, an average of 26 per year. 

What about cougars?

Most people are more afraid of cougars than of their fellow humans or dogs. But they shouldn't be. Cougars killed just 3 people in the United States from 2001-2010. That's an average of .3 per year.

So you're 54,000 times more likely to be killed by a person (probably a man) than by a cougar. And you're 87 times more likely to be killed by a dog, than by a cougar. This is why, if you value your life, people and dogs should be feared much more than cougars.

Unfortunately, irrationality reigns when it comes to wildlife. Why? Seemingly because they're wild. We're used to seeing men and dogs in parks. Cougars are rare, so people freak out when one is sighted.

Then there's the case of the hunter in eastern Oregon who shot and killed a wolf, claiming self-defense. His story is highly suspicious, for a number of reasons.

For one thing, he admits that at first he thought he saw three coyotes moving around him. Then he claims that one of the animals ran at him. Supposedly fearing for his life, he shot and killed the animal, which turned out to be a woif -- which can't be killed by hunters in Oregon unless it is a case of self-defense.

The man's story started to unravel when it was revealed that his bullet entered the side of the wolf and exited the other side. So the wolf couldn't have been running at him when it was shot. 

The pictures and police report paint a different picture, according to wolf advocacy group Oregon Wild... Steve Pedery, the nonprofit's conservation director, said in an email that he'd like to see further investigation of the hunting incident. He's not convinced the animal was running at the hunter, and questioned why the wounds are on the animal's side. 

"How can a wolf that is moving away from someone be a threat?" Pedery said, "and why would ODFW [Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) sign off on a report that is directly contradicted by the evidence?"

A commenter on the original Oregonian story, "Go Figure," makes some great points.

According to information and photos described by KGW, the wounds on the animal are inconsistent with the description of the wolf running toward the shooter. Instead, it seems the wolf was running away from the shooter at an angle, the bullet having entered mid-body and exited through the front of the animal at the left shoulder.

"The wolf has what appears to be an entry [wound] on her right [side], midway between the hind quarters and front shoulder. A larger exit wound appears to exist near the front left shoulder of the wolf."

If the hunter was fearful of being attacked by coyotes (he said he assumed they were coyotes until closer inspection) that were surrounding him at close range, which would prevent shooting toward all of them, a quick and reasonable first response would be a warning shot into the dirt. And, indeed, the hunter describes the animals he did not kill, which were protected wolves, immediately ran away after his one shot.

Western United States wild wolf attacks on an adult human who is not running (1) in mild weather, (2) in an area of plentiful game, (3) with no record of the wolves becoming habituated to a human population, or (4) being fed in the area are, to the best of my knowledge, unheard-of. That should have cast doubt on the hunter's story of being targeted by a group of wolves as if he was prey.

In any case, the evidence does not match the story, and the story is inconsistent with not wanting to harm animals he was not hunting. It seems likely that he may have poached a protected wolf, then, upon conferring with his buddies, hatched a cover story to try to avoid responsibility for an illegal kill. Certainly, based on the description of the photographic evidence alone, further investigation is warranted.

For sure, further investigation is warranted. Wolf attacks on humans are extremely rare. 

Despite what The Onion might have you believe, wolf attacks are exceedingly rare. In 2010, a fatal wolf attack in Alaska marked only the second documented case ever of a wolf killing someone in the wild. There are some 77,000 wolves in North America. The first-ever confirmed case of fatal wolf attack in the wild in North America occurred in 2005, when Kenton Carnegie was attacked by a pack of wolves in Saskatchewan, Canada.

In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle found evidence of only 27 non-fatal wolf attacks on humans in North America. Most of those cases involved rabid wolves, which are themselves exceedingly rare, according to the Chronicle.

So it's very, very unlikely that the hunter, Brian Scott, actually was attacked by a wolf. Probably what happened is that Scott thought the animals were coyotes, decided to shoot one of them, and then made up a story after realizing he had killed a protected wolf.

We've got to get beyond irrational fairy tales about Big Bad Wolves. Just as with cougars, wolves are hugely less of a threat to humans than other people and dogs are. Live and let live should be our basic wolf and cougar policy, not shoot on sight. 

How Salem's candidates and other local leaders look upon climate change

On Earth Day 2016, April 22, I asked 30 civic leaders in Salem three questions about climate change.

These were candidates running for Mayor and City Council in the May election (9 people); City councilors not running in this election (6 people); the Mayor, City Manager, and Public Works Director (3 people); Chamber of Commerce execs (2 people); top Statesman Journal and Salem Weekly staff (5 people); Marion County commissioners (3 people); plus KYKN talk show host Gator Gaynor and Salem Health CEO Cheryl Nester Wolfe.

Those folks were non-scientifically selected by me while I was sitting with my laptop at a south Salem Starbucks, thinking about who I should email my three questions to while sipping a grande Pike Place.

My email message and subsequent reminder message are in a continuation to this post, at the very end. I asked the same questions as I did in 2014, spurred by a Salem City Club talk by Jane Lubchenco. In a blog post at the time, I wrote about speaking with her after her talk:

Since Lubchenco mentioned climate change often in her City Club talk, I wanted to ask her if she could think of any reason why local public officials shouldn't be willing to say whether they agree with the scientific consensus about climate change/global warming.

"No," she told me. Which is the answer I expected, since she'd just said that science isn't political.

Science seeks to learn about the nature of shared reality, the world everyone inhabits -- conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, religious believers and non-believers, everybody.

Lubchenco's talk spurred me to compose a message I'll be sending to Salem-area public officials. And other local leaders: newspaper editors/publishers; Chamber of Commerce executives; corporate and non-profit organization leaders; people running for elected office.

Before I discuss the 2016 responses -- and non-responses -- from the 30 Salem-area leaders, here's the results. A blank obviously means the person didn't respond with a YES, NOT SURE, or NO to the three questions I asked. 

So far, I've gotten responses from 10 of the 30 people. Six were candidates in the May election, which says something. (I'll let readers decide on their own what that "something" is.) I also got a narrative reply from Jan Kailuweit, who is running for the Ward 1 City Council seat against Cara Kaser.

Kailuweit said:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond. As I'm sure you've been able to tell from my Facebook posts, I'm deeply committed to reducing my carbon footprint. This is one of the reasons why I own an older home (the ultimate act of recycling, as opposed to building or buying a brand new home), why I'm a strong believer in a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly infrastructure, and why I moved to downtown, so I can walk to the office. (Besides, not having to commute, I have more time for family and my car insurance gives me a sizable discount.)

Having grown up in Europe, which is much more densely populated and hence has dealt with pollution and waste reduction for many decades, I believe there is room for improvement in Salem. 

I trust my answer suffices for now.

I also heard back from Jason Tokarski of Mountain West Investment. He said:

Brian, thank you for inquiring of me on this subject. I have long wanted to better understand this subject and have looked for non-biased sources, but to this point have found nothing that I felt was informative without an agenda. Given that, I am not comfortable responding to your survey.

I thanked Tokarski for his directness, saying "I’m a big believer that it’s better to be honest about how we feel about something, rather than say what is politically correct or what we think people want to hear."

Which helps explain why I fondly look upon Warren Bednarz' "NOT SURE" about whether humans are mostly responsible for global warming. I disagree with Councilor Bednarz on some important local issues, and I don't agree that there's any doubt humans are causing global warming.

But I admire Bednarz for directly responding to the questions.

Almost certainly, some of the non-respondents are global warming deniers in one form or another. However, I suspect they're reluctant to admit this in a state and city where most citizens are strong defenders of protecting the environment. And there is no bigger threat to the habitability of our one and only Earth than global warming. 

A 2014 national Gallup poll about global warming found this:

Over the past decade, Americans have clustered into three broad groups on global warming. The largest, currently describing 39% of U.S. adults, are what can be termed "Concerned Believers" -- those who attribute global warming to human actions and are worried about it. This is followed by the "Mixed Middle," at 36%. And one in four Americans -- the "Cool Skeptics" -- are not worried about global warming much or at all.

Those Cool Skeptics, 25% of the adult population, lead decidedly to the right of the political spectrum: 80% are Republicans/lean Republican; 65% are conservative and only 9% liberal. Conversely, 76% of the Concerned Believers are Democrats/lean Democrat.

Thus it wouldn't be at all surprising if a good share of Salem's conservative leaders are skeptical about the scientific consensus on global warming. I just wish they'd be up-front about this, because it would make policy debates more fruitful in this town.

For example, one reason liberals oppose the planned billion dollar Third Bridge across the Willamette is its contribution to increased carbon emissions. But if conservative leaders in this town deny global warming, yet won't admit this, it is difficult to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of the Third Bridge. People talk past each other, rather than with each other.

Lastly, I'll note that Michael Davis, executive editor of the Statesman Journal, told me he wouldn't respond to the survey because Davis doesn't like what I've written and said about him. Well, I readily admit that I'm a frequent and strong critic of what Salem's daily newspaper has become under his leadership.

But as Jane Lubchenco told me (she was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration from 2009-13), there is no reason local public officials shouldn't be willing to say whether they agree with the scientific consensus about climate change/global warming. I'd add, local private leaders who take part in policy discussions also.

Whether you like the person asking questions about global warming shouldn't matter. However, in Davis' case it did. 

So if anyone else wants to contact the people who haven't responded yet to my survey, and ask them the same three questions, please do. The questions are in the continuation to this post that follows. Email me any responses you get, and I'll update the global warming survey results.

(The email addresses of those who haven't responded are publicly available. But if you can't find them, email me and I'll send you the ones you want.)

Here's the messages I sent out:

Open letter to Oregon's governor from a pissed-off wolf advocate

Dear Governor Kate Brown, 

You made a big mistake when you signed anti-wolf House Bill 4040 not long ago. I'm a proud progressive who is deeply irritated by this, notwithstanding my agreement with you on many other issues.

Oregon Wild says:

I am sad to report that Monday night, Governor Kate Brown signed HB 4040. This bill shielded the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife from public scrutiny and judicial review of their decision to strip endangered species protections from Oregon’s gray wolves.

There was no signing ceremony. There were no smiling politicians or stakeholders standing behind the Governor as she ratified the bill. There was no press conference. In fact, the bill was signed at night, and a simple statement was emailed by her staff the following day.

If that is not evidence that the Governor is ashamed of this bill, I don’t know what is. But she put her name on it.

 

My wife and I are long-time advocates for top predators such as wolves and cougars. We're familiar with the solid research regarding their benefits to ecosystems through a trophic cascade. 

In the years since the wolf reintroduction, Yellowstone has become a premiere scientific laboratory for wilderness observation and ecosystem recovery.  Scientists have come from around the world to watch the effect wild wolves have on the park.  We have discovered that an ecological effect called the “trophic cascade” has taken over Yellowstone, with the wolves initiating a more natural ecosystem balance than has been seen in over 65 years.

With only 5% of our nation’s wilderness left, people are recognizing the important roles complete ecosystems play in keeping all of us healthy. With new knowledge of the trophic cascade, we can now begin to focus wilderness recovery efforts on a wider variety of ecosystems. Using Yellowstone as an example, we can teach the world about the wolf’s positive and vital role in the wild.

Science. Facts. Reason. These are wonderful things. Until you signed HB 4040, I thought you believed in them. 

Guess not.

Because HB 4040 was written by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association and passed with two-thirds Republican support. (See my previous post: "Why Governor Brown should veto the horrible Oregon wolf bill, HB 4040")

So it's pretty damn obvious that some sort of backroom deal was reached between the R's and D's at the legislature to approve the bill with sufficient Democratic votes for passage, given that Dems control both the House and Senate, plus the Governor's Office.

HB 4040 is an outrageous affront to Oregon's separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Almost certainly it prevents a court's review of the questionable evidence that led the Fish and Wildlife Commission to decide that having about 100 wolves in this state means they no longer are endangered. 

A Salem Statesman Journal editorial said:

The legislation, House Bill 4040, is mystifying. It endorses the state wildlife commission’s decision last fall to take the gray wolf off Oregon’s official list of threatened or endangered species.

In doing so, the legislation apparently would block a lawsuit that conservationists have filed to overturn the commission’s decision.

So here we have the legislative branch of government lining up with the executive branch — the state Fish and Wildlife Commission — to preempt the third branch of government, the courts, from doing its job.

That seems like a blatant violation of the constitution’s separation of powers.

So now the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, which considers that the only good wolf is a dead wolf (I know this, because my wife has testified at numerous legislative hearings where ignorant ranchers in cowboy hats have said as much), is thrilled with your signing HB 4040, while environmentalists like me are outraged.

Well, Ms. Brown, I hope your campaign for another four years as a Democratic governor of this state gets lots of money from the Oregon Cattlemen's Association and their Republican friends, because I don't feel like giving you a dime.

When you signed HB 4040, this was an insult to sound science, transparency in public policy-making, your progressive supporters, and this state's environmental community.

You chose political expediency over doing the right thing. Sure, I understand this is the way governing works, but I don't have to like it, or approve of it. I often don't agree with Statesman Journal editorials, but in this case I do. 

We firmly believe that Oregon and our natural resources are better off when competing interests find areas of agreement instead of resorting to litigation. Ranchers have legitimate concerns about wolves’ impact on livestock.

But it would be grossly unfair, and a bad precedent, for the Legislature to change the rules after the litigation has started.

Besides, aren’t Democrats — who control the Legislature and who drew DeFazio’s ire — the politicians who demand that environmental decisions be made on sound science, not unsound politics? 

Why Gov. Brown should veto the horrible Oregon wolf bill, HB 4040

A lot of Democrats/progressives in Oregon consider the just-completed 2016 legislative session to have been a success.

But in my view the passage of HB 4040, which aligns our state with science-denying, anti-environment right-wing extremism that I'd hoped would be confined to Congressional craziness, is a huge negative that takes away from the positive steps taken: increasing Oregon's minimum wage, eliminating coal as an energy source, promoting more affordable housing.

Here's how the Center for Biological Diversity describes the bill, which awaits Governor Brown's signature.

The Oregon Legislature passed a bill tonight ratifying the delisting of wolves in Oregon and effectively preempting the right to any legal challenge. The 17-11 Senate vote to pass HB 4040 follows the bill’s passage in the House two weeks ago. The bill was introduced by Republican proponents of delisting on behalf of the livestock and sports-hunting industries seeking to block judicial review of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission’s illegal wolf-delisting decision last November.

There's so much not to like here.

(1) Ratifying the delisting of wolves in Oregon. This was a highly controversial action by the Fish and Wildlife Commission -- taking wolves off the list of endangered species in Oregon. As the Center for Biological Diversity points out:

In November 2015 the Fish and Wildlife Commission voted 4 to 2 to strip gray wolves of state endangered species act protections, despite having received comment letters from 25 leading scientists noting significant disagreement with delisting, and 10,000 public comments, 96 percent of which opposed the delisting.

(2) Preempting the right to any legal challenge. HB 4040 fulfills the dream of irrational wolf haters. It made wolf management in Oregon a political matter, rather than a policy issue founded on solid scientific facts and judicial review. 

In December the Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild filed a legal challenge to the commission’s decision. Shortly after the 2016 session of the Oregon Legislature convened earlier this month, bills were introduced by Senate and House Republicans to ratify the commission’s decision in order to block judicial review of the delisting decision.

(3) The 17-11 Senate vote...introduced by Republican proponents. Oregonians have elected Democrats to lead our state and reflect our values. So how did an anti-wolf bill pass, given the strong support for environmental protections in Oregon? 

Because HB 4040 was a legislative "bone" thrown out to Republicans as part of session deal-making. Meaning, Democrats knew it was substantively a bad bill, but politically some D's felt inclined to vote for it.

In the end, the bill passed with about two-thirds Republican votes, even though Democrats have majorities in both houses of the legislature. In the Senate, 11 R's and 6 D's voted yes; in the House, 23 R's and 10 D's voted yes.

Editorial page editor Dick Hughes wrote in the Statesman Journal:

Republicans showed they had the parliamentary wits to tie the Senate in knots. R's saw themselves as stacking against the D's hijacking of the legislative session. D's see the R's as hijacking the legislative process. Finally, both sides agreed to session-ending compromise. 

Then came the wolf bill... the political symbolism was huge, which is why the Democratic leadership provided sufficient votes for the minority Republicans to pass House Bill 4040. The wolf bill was a chance to give Republicans a bone after they had been run over by high-profile Democratic legislation.

...HB 4040 is not good policy. But signing it would be good politics for Oregon.

Well, I disagree with Hughes (as I usually do). HB 4040 establishes a horrible precedent for this state.

If this bill becomes law, legislators can point to it as justification for ignoring facts/science when making other environmental decisions, and denying opponents of those decisions a right to challenge them judicially.

What if -- scary thought coming -- Republicans took over the Governorship along with both the state House and Senate? Then they pass a bill saying it is the official policy of the State of Oregon that human-caused global warming does not exist, and this (erroneous) conclusion can't be challenged in court.

They can point to HB 4040, should it be signed by Governor Brown, as a precedent that supports politicians making final decisions that, up to now, have been challengeable through our judicial system.

The wolf bill is bad for Oregon in many ways. Please urge Governor Brown to veto it.

Phone her at 503-378-4582. Email her via the Governor's web site.

Tell Brown you are opposed to HB 4040 both because it enshrines ill-considered wolf policy, and sets a dangerous precedent for ignoring science and cutting off the right of citizens to challenge state agency decisions in court.

If you need more convincing that HB 4040 is a bad idea, check out Quinn Read's opinion piece in the Oregonian, "Governor should veto anti-wolf bill."

Put simply, if Oregon wants to maintain its national leadership role in wolf conservation, Gov. Brown must veto this anti-wolf bill. She must show her constituents that Oregon's imperiled wildlife are not political bargaining chips and that decisions about wildlife management should be based on the best available science, not politics or the wishes of powerful special interests. A veto of this bill will allow Oregon's wildlife officials to get back to the real task at hand: ensuring robust protections are maintained for Oregon's fragile population as the wolf plan is updated.

Malheur Refuge militants ignore reality of "welfare ranching"

Anti-government militants' takeover of buildings at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge here in Oregon has a lot of absurd aspects. 

For example, the ranchers (convicted of federal crimes) they supposedly are supporting have disavowed the militants. Seemingly most of the people in Harney County, where the refuge is located, want the outsiders to leave.

Also, the militants claim to be defending the Constitution. But the founders of this country set up a method to decide how the Constitution is to be defended. It's called the Supreme Court. Until that court rules federal ownership of land is unconstitutional, those who say otherwise have no legal leg to stand on.

So they should be raising money for court battles, rather than carrying guns around and shooting their mouths off about claiming the Malheur Wildlife Refuge for private ownership. 

My favorite absurdity, though, is how right-wing supporters of the refuge occupiers like to frame the dispute as a battle between hard-working independent cattle ranchers and an overbearing federal government.

The truth is that "welfare ranching" is alive and well in Harney County, as it is throughout the West.

Taxpayers heavily subsidize those who raise cattle on public lands. So it is ridiculous that the militants are complaining about federal control of those lands, when ranchers benefit so much from publicly financed giveaways. 

The welfare rancher label applies to all ranchers who hold permits to graze the vast public spaces of the West, both delinquent and not. It includes the Wright brothers; the ranchers in Iron and Beaver counties in Utah complaining that wild horses eat too much; and 21,000 others. 

They are all welfare ranchers subsidized by US taxpayers, and you know who are the biggest welfare ranchers of all, grazing livestock on the hundreds of millions of acres of public grass and forest land, all assisted by public subsidies paid for by US taxpayers? 

Billionaires that populate Forbes rich lists. 

The .01 percenters. They are the nation’s biggest welfare ranchers, according to numerous environmental and policy groups; and it’s time they brought some attention to themselves, and the federal grazing program they’re exploiting to waste as much as $1 billion a year of taxpayer money while causing long-term damage to one of the public’s most treasured assets. 

Treasured is the right word. Citizens say they want federal land to be protected for future generations, with livestock grazing being a much lower priority. 

Which makes sense, even economically. 

"Taking Stock of Public Lands Grazing" is an economic analysis from the 1990s, but likely the conclusions still hold true. 

Given that agriculture is the direct source of only a small fraction of total economic activity, that livestock grazing is only a fraction of total agricultural activity, that federal forage is only a fraction of the total feed required by western livestock, and that feed is only one source of the value created in livestock production, it should not be surprising if that federal forage supports only a very small fraction of total economic activity in the West.

At the time of the study, just 0.1% of income in Harney County came from economic activity due to grazing on federal lands. That's one-tenth of one percent. And only 3.1% of jobs in the county were supported by federal land grazing.

So recreation, tourism, wildlife conservation, and such likely are more important to Harney County than welfare ranching. 

Update: I just came across a typically geeky-correct post on this subject from the 538 folks: "The Armed Oregon Ranchers Who Want Free Land Are Already Getting A 93 Percent Discount." Excerpt:

According to a 2015 report by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bureau of Land Management’s fees for grazing cattle on public land are much lower than the fees charged by private landowners, and they’ve only become cheaper in recent years.

...So getting to buy grazing rights from the Bureau of Land Management is a steal, unless, like the Bundys, you think the government is trying to charge you for what’s rightfully yours.

I've written several blog posts on this subject. Since it's a pleasure to quote myself, I'll do just that. 

Rancher thinks public land is "private"

I don't like ATVs wrecking nature. But I also don't like the attitude of "welfare ranchers" who get to graze livestock on public land for ridiculously low fees, then complain that they're not able to do just what they want on their property.

Such as killing wolves, even though these natural predators account for only a minuscule percentage of livestock losses.

Also, keeping people off of leased public land... It'd help if ranchers paid higher lease fees that truly covered the cost of both the grazing right and the environmental damage done by their livestock. Then they'd have a better argument for keeping other taxpayers off of the public land they're leasing.

Oregon cattlemen out of touch with wolf reality

Face the facts, ranchers. You're feeding at the public trough.

Government is keeping you in business if you graze cattle on federal land. So this is one reason why you need to go along with the public will regarding wolves. Which currently is saying, "Let them become part of the balance of nature again."

Ranchers wrongly believe that wolves are a much bigger threat to livestock than they really are, so they jump to an erroneous conclusion -- wolf kill! -- when they see a dead animal.

Again, ranchers need to remember that when they're using public land, they're getting a taxpayer funded benefit, just like welfare recipents do. They should feel grateful for that subsidy of their operations and not complain when reasonable restrictions are placed on their use of public property.

Ranchers overly afraid of the big bad wolf

Ranchers should chill about wolves and spend their energy worrying about other more serious problems. Like, how much longer is the public going to let them get away with welfare ranching?

Many ranchers in Oregon graze their cattle on public lands. According to the “Welfare Ranching” book, federal permittees pay only $1.35 per month to graze a cow-calf pair while the average monthly cost of grazing a cow-calf pair on private lands is $11.10. So us taxpayers should have a lot to say about what happens on public ranchland, since we’re the ones subsidizing the ranchers.

"Shell No" Greenpeace protest in Portland -- a brave call to action for all of us

This afternoon I was transfixed with local Portland television coverage of Greenpeace protesters' efforts to slow down disastrous oil drilling by Shell in Arctic waters. 

Disastrous, because global warming is the greatest threat to civilization as we know it, along with the United States' national security.

Watching the incredible bravery and determination of thirteen protesters who hung from ropes on the St. Johns Bridge to try to prevent a vessel loaded with equipment needed for Shell's drilling to move from a Portland drydock, and the courage of "Kayaktivists" who did their best to block the progress of the ship, I felt like I was watching a re-run of desegregation efforts in the South back in the 1960's.

Meaning, it's pretty damn clear that history is looking to look favorably upon those who stood up for saving the Earth's environment, just as history does to those who fought the evils of segregation. 

In each case, the Power Structure -- police, government -- started out on the wrong side, favoring special interests rather than the broad public interest.

It was frustrating to watch the Portland Fire and Police Departments, Coast Guard, and other agencies band together today to stop a protest that was morally virtuous, while clearing the way for a ship that will help destroy our planet's livability.

To all of the protesters, I say Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

You inspired me. You motivated me. You gave me hope for the future -- seeing how many people were willing to risk arrest and injury in order to make a righteous stand against Shell's corporate greed and government's lack of concern for future generations.

I just gave $50 to Greenpeace. Not much, but I wanted to do something to express my support for an organization that fights so hard for our one and only Planet Earth. 

Global warming is here. This summer's record-breaking heat in Oregon testifies to that, not that any more evidence is needed beyond what the world's climate scientists have already provided. Humanity ignores that evidence at its peril.

I'm disappointed that President Obama gave permission for Shell's Arctic oil drilling. Hopefully the Portland protests will help to change his mind. Or at least to stand firm when the next misguided effort to add to our planet's greenhouse gas pollution requests government approval. 

If nothing else, those protests helped change my mind.

It isn't enough for me, or anybody, to recycle, drive an electric car, turn down the thermostat, and do all the other Green things that we're told will help the environment. It also is necessary to, in the words of today's protesters, say "Shell No!" to the rich and powerful who care about short-term profits rather than the long-term future of humanity.

If governments and corporations won't listen to scientists' warnings about the clear and present danger of global warming, then stronger steps have to be taken. Civil disobedience, for example.

Again, thanks to today's protesters for making this clear to Oregon, the country, and the world. 

Cheerful conversation in the Camp Sherman store

There's a bit of irony in the title of this blog post -- the cheerful. Yes, I always enjoy chatting with Roger and Kathy White, the friendly owners of the oh-so-charming Camp Sherman store in central Oregon.

But today Kathy and I talked about some uncomfortable subjects -- impacts of the impending Big One earthquake and nasty effects of global warming  -- after I finished paying for some essentials of life: wine, peanuts in the shell, newspaper, Camp Sherman t-shirt.

I'd asked her how the winter went in Camp Sherman. My wife and I hadn't visited our Forest Service cabin that we have a 1/4 ownership share in since last fall. 

"It was really nice," Kathy told me. "Quite mild." "I can believe it," I said. "When we drove over the pass, it was amazing to see how little snow there was."

I then asked her if she'd ever wondered if the springs that feed the beautiful Metolius River might dry up partially if global warming continues to result in more Cascades precipitation falling as rain rather than snow.

"What if the unknown source of the springs is from snow melt that no longer exists? Couldn't that lead to the Metolius river flow dropping considerably?"

Kathy said that she and her husband had thought about this possibility. It'd be disturbing, for sure.

Here's a photo I took of the upper reaches of the Metolius, not far from the spring-fed headwaters. The river is quite shallow here, less than a foot deep in most places. The logs were put in the river to enhance salmon spawning habitat. Notice the vegetation growing on them now, thanks to the near-constant water level.

So that's one of many "unthinkable" possible consequences of global warming. What once seemed so unlikely as to be almost impossible now has a decent chance of occurring. 

In a book I'm reading, "This Idea Must Die," I learned a new word: stationarity. Here's excerpts from the short essay by that name written by geographer Laurence C. Smith.

Stationarity -- the assumption that natural-world phenomena fluctuate with a fixed envelope of statistical uncertainty that doesn't change over time -- is a widely applied scientific concept ready to be retired.

...a growing body of research shows that stationarity is often the exception, not the norm. As new satellite technologies scan the Earth, as more geological records are drilled, and as the instrument records lengthen, they commonly reveal patterns and structures inconsistent with a fixed envelope of random noise.

Instead, there are transitions to various quasi-stable states, each characterized by a different set of physical conditions and associated statistical properties.

...And anthropogenic climate change, induced by our steady ramping-up of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere, is by definition the opposite of a fixed, stationary process.

Thus climate change is going to bring us new definitions of normal. So-called "hundred-year floods" could start occurring every ten years. Ditto for hundred-year dry spells.

Not a cheery thought.

Neither was the subject Kathy and I also talked out: the Big One earthquake, something I've become more interested in after learning that City officials in Salem, where I live, seem to have lost interest in seismically strengthening our City Hall and Library so they won't fall down when, not if, a super-strong Cascadia subduction zone earthquake hits.

Kathy told me that she'd been to a meeting where earthquake experts talked about how the Redmond airport (fairly close to Camp Sherman) would be the prime place where emergency supplies would be flown into Oregon after a Big One earthquake.

Meaning, every large airport in Western Oregon would be unusable after the expected magnitude 8 or 9 earthquake. These occur every few hundred years in the Pacific Northwest. The last one happened in 1700.

We're due for another huge earthquake.

Could be tomorrow. Could be twenty years from now. But the Big One is coming, for sure. I said that I'd been to a talk where an emergency preparedness planner said that most bridges on i-5 would be unusable. Highways to the Oregon coast could be closed for a year or more, I recall the planner saying. 

This isn't exactly akin to an end to stationarity, since Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes have been happening for thousands of years. It isn't like global warming, which is causing a major change in the likelihood of weather events. 

But both the prospect of the Metolius River losing a large part of its water source, and Western Oregon being devastated by the Big One earthquake, are examples of catastrophes that seem to most people like they will never happen.

Hey, those things haven't happened in recent history, certainly not in the lifetime of anyone alive today, so what is the chance that they will happen soon? Seemingly... almost zero.

Not true. It isn't wise to base the future on the recent past. Science is our main way of seeing beyond our immediate personal experience to better learn what is coming next, and why. 

I told Kathy, "Talking about global warming and the Big One earthquake makes me feel good about being 66, rather than 16, since there's a much better chance that, given my age, I'll die before bad things happen. I worry, though, about our children and grandchildren. What kind of world will they inherit?"

Hopefully one where people did everything they could to prepare for disasters that have been foretold.

Hiding our heads in the sand may make us feel better, but we owe it both to ourselves and future generations to face difficult truths as squarely as possible.

Salem's Mayor and City Council scoff at sustainability

If you're an environmentally-conscious individual, family, or business thinking of relocating to Salem, Oregon, keep in mind what happened last night at a City Council work session. 

Only two out of nine voting members (eight councilors and Mayor Anna Peterson) were in favor of establishing a Sustainability Commission, Tom Andersen and Diana Dickey.

I've been told that Mayor Peterson even said, “Sustainability — I don’t know anything about it.”

Wow. Ignorance among City leaders is inexcusable when it comes to making sure that Salem, and Earth as a whole, is as habitable and livable for future generations as it is for us today. 

It is the height of selfishness to plan only for now, ignoring the impact of present decisions on tomorrow's well-being.

So let's give an I Don't Give a Shit award to Mayor Peterson and City Councilors Chuck Bennett, Brad Nanke, Steve McCoid, Daniel Benjamin, Warren Bednarz, and Jim Lewis.

(I assume all attended this important goal-setting meeting.)

If the Mayor had cared to inform herself about what "sustainability" means before she mindlessly voted against a Sustainability Commission, all she would have needed to do is pick up the most recent copy of Salem Weekly, which is available for free at a City Hall paper box. 

An editorial, "Time For a Sustainability Commission," would have enlightened her. 

If, however, we wish to avoid bequeathing a disastrous future to our children, it is imperative that we act now and at every level to make our communities economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable.  No doubt the federal and state governments must mobilize enormous resources (material and knowledge based) needed to reverse the impacts of the environmental crises, but local communities also have a decisive role to play in this process. 

It is local government that does most of the planning for future development and delivers most of the daily services residents expect. Hence, local expertise and local resources will be pivotal to rethinking and implementing changes in the ways we organize our communities.

Many Oregon communities are not waiting for the state and federal governments to act.  They recognize that a sound future rests upon adopting policies that are economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable and they know that they have many local resources to tap into that encourage innovation and success.

For Forest Grove, for example, sustainability is “essential for the continued livability of the planet.” Forest Grove, like Eugene, has established a Sustainability Commission that includes citizens from all walks of life, e.g., the academic, business, nonprofit, and public sectors and is charged with reviewing and initiating city policies related to environmental health, economic prosperity, and social equity.  This approach reflects the growing awareness of the need to embed sustainable practices into all aspects of community life.

In addition to Forest Grove and Eugene, a few minutes of Googling led me to two other Oregon cities that have a sustainability commission, or something very similar: Portland and Lake Oswego.  

But Salem's city officials seem determined to make this town a Willamette Valley backwater, one of the few large cities in western Oregon whose commitment to the environment, sustainability, and Greenness in general is pitifully lacking.

Here's some other evidence that Salem's Mayor and City Council majority are mired in a backward-looking perspective on 21st century problems and possibilities.

While other cities in Oregon are energetically and creatively moving ahead on Green initiatives that stimulate the economy, protect the environment, and enhance livability, Salem's Mayor and City Council...

(1) Also crazily voted last night to move ahead with an unneeded half billion dollar (or more) Third Bridge that will likely suck up most of Salem's transportation money, leaving little or nothing for improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, or seismically retrofitting the two current bridges so they won't collapse in a major earthquake. Only Councilor Tom Andersen stood up for sanity at yesterday's work session.

(2) Heard Mayor Peterson recently tell Salem's citizenry, in effect, "Shut up about trees." Meaning, the Mayor and some city councilors are just fine with City staff colluding in back room deals with businesses, or anyone else who wants to cut down street trees for no good reason, as happened in 2013 with five healthy, beautiful Japanese Zelkovas on downtown's State Street.

(3) Are, as I said in my Salem Weekly column, fiddling while the planet burns. Most of them aren't willing to say that they accept the reality of global warming; they favor cutting down urban forests for parking lots; they allow Salem's mass transit (bus) system to remain desperately mediocre; they give pennies to bike lanes and multiuse trails while lavishing many dollars on autocentric vehicular projects.

Don't get me wrong: there are good reasons to live in Salem or have a business here. But the quality of leadership at City Hall isn't one of them. 

The best thing to do is to vote out all of them, aside from Tom Andersen, the only city councilor who has a firm grasp on what needs to be done to bring Salem up to speed with other more with-it Oregon cities when it comes to economic development, sustainability, and livability.

Until that time comes, those of us who live in or near Salem (I'm outside the city limits, with a Salem address) will have to grit our Green teeth and be thankful that we aren't living in Oklahoma City or Houston.

It's just more than a little disturbing to see a Mayor and City Council so out of touch with a citizenry which leans decidedly progressive, but is being (temporarily) represented by elected officials bought and paid for by Salem Chamber of Commerce and other special interest money.

Warmest winter in Salem. But are City leaders global warming deniers?

Meteorological winter -- December, January, February -- is over. It's official. This past winter tied with 1934 for the warmest winter ever in Salem, Oregon.

Portland also had its warmest winter. 

It's pretty damn obvious that the weather here in the northwest is getting weirder. Not only here, of course. All over.

The cause is global warming. Almost certainly. I'd leave out the "almost," but I'm scientifically minded, and science is never 100% sure about anything. Just very highly sure.

Three years ago we had a unusual spring cold spell. This year, we had an unusual winter-long warm spell. Just as would be expected if global warming is happening, as it is. 

I talked about the reasons why in this post. Extreme weather is going to be more common as the jet stream becomes "wavier" and more persistent in its wavy pattern. According to climate scientists, this likely is caused by the Arctic warming, which leads to a less powerful jet stream.

Oregon's snowpack is at record low levels for the second year in a row. Like Bob Dylan sang, 'You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Global warming is real. It is impacting Salem. It is impacting Oregon. This city, this state, indeed the entire world, need to do something about it.

Yet like I said in a recent Strange Up Salem column, "Salem fiddles while the planet burns." 

We've got a Mayor and city council majority who are pressing for an unneeded billion dollar third bridge that will substantially increase Salem's carbon footprint.

We have a local newspaper, the Statesman Journal, that regularly publishes opinion pieces and letters to the editor by global warming deniers, and has editorialized in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline -- which climate experts say must be stopped to prevent the catastrophe that would result from using up Canada's oil sands.

If our City's leaders believe in global warming, they sure aren't acting like they do. So my theory is... they don't believe in it. 

I know. This is Oregon. Western Oregon. Willamette Valley Oregon. Where Portland, Corvallis, and Eugene are. Not Texas or Oklahoma.

But Salem is a different city animal from the towns around us. We're way behind the times when it comes to things these cities do much better than us at.

Bike lanes. Mass transit. New urbanism. Social equity. And also, scientific literacy.

Yeah, it's embarrassing. Along with disturbing. Optimist that I am, though, I'm hoping that this year's record-breaking warm winter and low snowpack will wake up the climate change deniers in this town to the reality that faces us.

Do something about global warming, or it is going to do a lot to us.

Civilization won't be the same if temperatures caused by human greenhouse gas emissions keep on rising as they are. 

The question is: do our Mayor, City Manager, city councilors, and Statesman Journal newspaper executives care enough about this town, and the entire Earth, to stop hiding their heads in science-denying sand?

Why legal marijuana may spur changes in Oregon land use laws

Today I attended a 1000 Friends of Oregon meeting at the capitol about land use issues in the current 2015 session of the state legislature.

For me, the most interesting discussion involved Measure 91, the initiative voters approved last November that legalizes recreational marijuana. 

As reported in a blog post about an OLCC listening tour meeting in Salem this month, people are talking about Measure 91 leading to legal pot becoming this state's "Napa Valley" when it comes to tourism.

(Of course, if California legalizes marijuana soon, as is expected, the real Napa Valley and points north could become their own cannabis-focused Napa Valley.)

State Representative Ken Helm, a land use attorney, spoke about Measure 91 during part of the 1000 Friends meeting. Among various land use issues surrounding the legalization of marijuana (zoning, for example), he brought up something that hadn't occurred to me before.

Marijuana now is a legitimate agricultural crop. A high value crop. In fact, a very high-value crop. 

I realize that growing marijuana takes special equipment and skills.

But if I'm reading my scribbled notes from the meeting correctly, Helm said that in some parts of Oregon a single marijuana plant can grow to 18 feet tall and produce 8-10 pounds of pot. Since the retail price of marijuana buds is about $200 per ounce in medical marijuana dispensaries, a lot of cash can be generated by just a few plants.

Currently Oregon's land use laws restrict building a single-family home on EFU (exclusive farm use) land. I'm not sure if this 2008 Stoehl Rives legal overview, "Dwellings in the vineyard," is still up to date, but it seems to be, pretty much. The piece talks about vineyards, but is applicable to farm uses generally.

Ever thought about building your dream home out in the middle of a vineyard in wine county? Curious about buying vineyard property, but worried that you may not be able to build the desired family home? Or what if you run across a nice piece of property, and it has a dilapidated old farmhouse that's just not suited to your taste?  

These are common questions people may face when buying vineyard property in Oregon. When purchasing property for vineyard development or a planted vineyard, there are many factors to take into account before signing on the dotted line, but a key, although often overlooked issue, is whether applicable state and county land use regulations allow the construction and year-round use of a permanent residence. 

...To site a dwelling under the gross income test, a property owner is obligated to demonstrate that a vineyard on high-value farmland has produced at least $80,000 in annual gross income over the past two years, or alternatively $80,000 in annual gross income over three of the past five years. If the vineyard is on non-high-value farmland, then the hurdle is somewhat lower, and the property owner only needs to demonstrate that the vineyard has produced at least $40,000 over the past two years, or three of the past five years. 

Rep. Helm told us that there aren't plans to change this gross income threshold for farming generally -- just for marijuana grows. The reason relates to the small amount of land it takes to generate $80,000 from growing marijuana.

Someone couid have just a small parcel of EFU land, a few acres or less, and the current income threshold would allow building a home on farmland if the property was devoted to growing marijuana. 

Since Oregon's land use laws are intended to restrict "McMansions" sprouting up on irreplaceable farmland, Helm said the income threshold for marijuana growing may be raised to $160,000. Someone at the meeting noted that even this may not be high enough, given the high cash value of a small number of marijuana plants.

However, Helm also pointed out that southern Oregon, in particular, already has a thriving medical marijuana industry.

Growers there are devoted to providing quality cannabis for patients who need it, which often is low in THC and high in CBD (making it better for pain relief, without marked psychoactive effects). Thus he said that the state legislature needs to balance the desirability of making some changes to Oregon's land use laws, with not discouraging the growth of a new beneficial high-value agricultural crop -- marijuana.

There's got to be some middle ground here.

I can see why people should be prevented from making an end-run around land use laws by buying a few acres of farmland, setting up a marijuana grow site with a small number of plants that generates $80,000 of gross income every few years, and then getting the right to put a house on the land.

However, legitimate marijuana growers shouldn't be penalized just because their crop generates a lot more income per acre than farmland planted in other ways does.

It'll be interesting to see how the Oregon legislature handles this issue, given that most legislators favor both marijuana legalization and protecting farmland from residential development.

Will Oregon's low carbon fuel bill be horse-traded away?

This morning I went to the monthly meeting of the Woodburn Democrats group, getting both a free breakfast and the ability to take part in some interesting progressive talk. 

I'd been asked to say a few words about the Kitzhaber/Hayes scandal that led to our Governor's resignation, then lead a discussion. (Not that I, or hardly anybody else, is capable of leading Dems, well known for their like herding cats proclivity.)

Representative Betty Komp started off the meeting with some remarks about how the 2015 Oregon legislative session is going.

During the question and comment time, I told her that I was pleased with how the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate is pushing through important bills early on in the session, such as the low carbon fuel standard bill and the "Motor Voter" registration bill.

A bit naively, in retrospect, I said something like:

It'll be great to have the low carbon fuel bill passed before the legislature tackles the big transportation bill. I've heard that Republicans want to hold the low carbon bill hostage in order to get their votes on the transportation bill. But if the low carbon fuel bill is already passed, this will take away the potential of it being horse-traded away during the usual end-of-session negotiating.

If I'd read today's newspaper before going to the meeting, I might not have said what I did. Because when I got home, I saw this in a story about our new governor, Kate Brown.

Bills that come to her desk for signing will be treated the same way, Brown said. The only one she would commit Friday to signing is the "Motor Voter" bill that she championed early during the legislative session.

She said she supports the concept behind the low-carbon fuel standard bill that has generated controversy this year, but she did not say whether she would sign it into law.

l'm not sure what "treated the same way" refers to. It might be a reference earlier in the story to Brown deciding whether to keep Kitzhaber's staff members on a case-by-case basis.

Now, maybe it doesn't mean much -- Brown saying she hasn't decided whether to sign into law the low carbon fuel standard that's much beloved by Oregon environmentalists. But it might, as this would fit into the Horse Trading Hypothesis that I'd hoped was off the table.

Fitting into all this is an interesting post on Blue Oregon by Ronald Buel, "More highways! Fight climate change! (Wait a sec...)"

He points out the disconnect between Dems in the state legislature (1) backing an effort to fight global warming through the low carbon fuel standard, and (2) pushing a transportation bill that likely would include money for new roads, freeways, bridges, and other autocentric stuff.

It’s an article of Democratic Party faith in Oregon that climate change and global warming threatens our planet with devastation within this century.

This prevailing Democratic view follows the science that the human burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change and global warming, and that somewhere around one-third of this problem is coming from motor vehicles that burn fossil fuel in internal combustion engines on our highways. 

It’s also an article of Democratic Party faith in Oregon that our highway infrastructure needs to be built out at breakneck speed in order to deal with growing congestion on the state’s highways, so that our economy can thrive.

The annual Oregon Business Summit, held earlier this year, attended by thousands of businessmen, and capturing our leading politicians of both parties to speak there, recently proclaimed this congestion as the state’s number one issue.

The Democratic Party in Oregon seems led by the nose by unions who also love that argument, including particularly the building trades and the AFL-CIO, who are dying for these local union highway construction jobs that used to be so numerous but have virtually disappeared as people drive less and drive vehicles that use less gas per mile.

No one in the Democratic Party is trying to publicly reconcile these two inconveniently opposing points of view. 

In fact, politicians of all stripes in Oregon would prefer that there be no public reconciliation. If there were reconciliation, the politicians would all be negligent by not acting to prevent the devastation to the planet that will eventually be caused by man-made climate change.

That means rejecting the false arguments of the business and labor lobbies that we must somehow build our way out of job-stifling congestion with many large highway expansion projects.

Nicely said, Mr. Buel. 

At the Woodburn Democrats meeting I said that if the low carbon fuel standard bill is a fait accompli by the  time the transportation bill is voted on, Republicans will be faced with a choice:

Either sign on to the transportation bill (which almost certainly will require raising the state gas tax) or give up on getting some infrastructure projects for the rural parts of the state that they care about most.

I'm enough of a political realist to recognize that some new highway projects will need to be part of the transportation bill.

But these should be a lesser priority than maintaining the roads and bridges we already have, many of which are falling apart and/or are not earthquake-proof. Further, mass transit, bicycle lanes, and other forms of non-vehicular transportation should get a good share of the money in a 2015 transportation bill. 

So says 1000 Friends of Oregon, a group that knows what's best for this state.

1000 Friends is advocating for a transportation funding package that prioritizes safety, maintenance over new roads and highways, and adequately funds transit, pedestrian and bicycle improvements. These investments promote active transportation and decrease emissions, which in turn minimize the detrimental health impacts of single occupancy vehicle use and promote efficient land use patterns. Not budgeting for highway expansions would relieve future additional taxpayer maintenance burdens.

It'd be crazy for the state legislature to cancel out the environmental and economic benefit of a low carbon fuel standard bill by passing a transportation bill that fails to recognize the urgent necessity of moving away from outmoded "build more roads" thinking.

Salem's leaders need to say where they stand on climate change

It's time -- no, way past time -- for community leaders here in Salem, Oregon to answer three questions about climate change/global warming.

(1) Do you believe that global warming is occurring, and is causing the Earth's climate to change in various ways?

(2) Do you believe that humans are mostly responsible for the global warming/climate change that is occurring?

(3) Do you believe that humans need to engage in actions to deal with both the causes of global warming and its detrimental effects on humanity?

These are the questions I asked Salem's Mayor, City Manager, and city councilors about a year ago. (See "I ask Salem-area leaders about climate change.") 

Only two city councilors out of the ten City of Salem officials responded to me. They agreed with the scientific consensus, saying "Yes" to each question.

The others wimped out, probably because they fear being held accountable for City Hall's environmentally destructive policies: pushing for a billion dollar sprawl-inducing carbon-spewing unneeded Third Bridge; allowing large, beautiful, healthy trees to be cut down for no good reason; ignoring the urgent need for bike lanes and pedestrian safety while throwing big bucks at 1950's style autocentric road projects.

it isn't only City officials who are in the environmental dark ages. Salem Hospital, the Chamber of Commerce, and other corporate types are acting just as destructively. 

This was the theme of my most recent Strange Up Salem column in Salem Weekly, "Salem fiddles while the planet burns." Excerpt:

Officials at City Hall currently are led by a Mayor, City Manager, and city councilors whose general attitude toward caring for our one and only Earth is decidedly at odds with the values of most local citizens and Oregonians as a whole.

Last year I wrote to them, asking if they believed global warming was happening, humans are mostly responsible, and we need to do something about it.

Only two out of the ten top City of Salem officials said “yes.”

The rest cowered in a science-denying hidey-hole, unwilling to admit that their support for environmentally destructive actions was at odds with the obvious necessity to do everything possible to avert catastrophic changes to the ability of our planet to support human civilization.

So while both the Earth and the western United States experienced record warmth in 2014; while ski resorts in Oregon face steadily declining snowpacks as hotter air causes more precipitation to fall as rain; while drought becomes an ever-increasing threat to farmland and forests…

Salem’s clueless politicians and corporate executives go on their merry Screw the Planet way.

I'm hoping that our local chapter of 350.org will take this on as a project -- pressing local leaders to make clear how they regard the most important issue of our time, keeping the Earth a friendly place for civilization to prosper.

Since global warming obviously is a planet-wide problem, there's no place to hide from the consequences of human-caused climate change. 

LIkewise, government, corporate, and non-profit leaders at every level, including local, can't be allowed to hide when asked whether they believe in the scientific consensus underlying my three questions. 

If they don't accept that consensus, so be it. If they agree with the consensus but aren't willing to act in accord with it, so be it. Best of all, of course, is for them to both agree with the reality of human-caused global warming and accept the need to vigorously act to reduce its already-disastrous effects.

I'll share my entire Salem fiddles while the planet burns column as a continuation to this post.

Hunters have mistaken view of wildlife "management" in Oregon

My wife and I found a lot not to like in Ty Stubblefield's miguided opinion piece in today's Statesman Journal, "New director must give ODFW new direction."
Download New director must give ODFW new direction

Laurel closely follows research in the area of top predators (wolves, cougars, coyotes). It's pretty clear that Stubblefield, who is the Oregon Hunters Association Field Administrator, doesn't. 

His piece echoed familiar misconceptions about so-called "wildlife management," including the weird assumption that what hunters want should guide the policies of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 

Stubblefield acknowledges that fewer people hunt every year. At the same time, Oregonians increasingly are drawn to wild, natural areas for recreation and rejuvenation. So ODFW needs to meet the needs of everybody in this state, not just those who buy hunting and fishing licenses.

Here's the thing: big developers pay the largest fees for construction permits, which go to support planning agencies. But obviously those developers shouldn't be allowed to decide what city zoning codes and planning policies should be.

Yet hunters believe that because their fees help pay for ODFW, their special interest wants should trump those of the general public.

I left a comment on the opinion piece. Not surprisingly, I feel like I made good sense. Here's what I said:

Ty, you represent a special interest group, the increasingly small number of Oregonians who hunt and fish. Our natural lands, especially those owned by the public, have to be managed for the benefit of everybody, not just a few.

Most people want wilderness to be as wild as possible. Nature just did fine managing predator/prey populations before humans came along and upset that balance. 

You really need to educate yourself about current research on the value of top predators such as wolves and cougars (along with coyotes). ODFW's goal should be to encourage a healthy population of top predators to benefit the entire ecosystem, rather than to maximize the ability of hunters to kill deer and elk.

My wife and I, along with countless other Oregonians, would much prefer to enjoy natural areas that are filled with wolves and cougars, rather than hunters marching through the woods with high-powered weapons looking to shoot something.

I like your suggestion to fund ODFW from general funds, or some other source of revenue, rather than hunting and fishing licenses. Have you noticed that "W" stands for "wildlife," not hunters?

It's crazy to look upon wildlife as a crop to be harvested by hunters. That's missing the point of what environmental sustainability is all about. You aren't doing the cause of hunters any good by reverting to outmoded, scientifically indefensible attitudes about wildlife management.

I'll end with a quote from Naomi Klein about the folly of "extractivism," which you and your organization appear to subscribe to:
------------------
"Extractivism is a nonreciprocal, dominance-based relationship with the earth, one purely of taking. it is the opposite of stewardship, which involves taking but also taking care that regeneration and future life continues.

Extractivism is the mentality of the mountaintop remover and the old-growth clear-cutter. It is the reduction of life into objects for the use of others, giving them no integrity or value of their own -- turning living complex ecosystems into 'natural resources'..."
-------------------
Wolves, cougars, and other top predators aren't lifeless objects whose only purpose is target practice for hunters. They are essential parts of a vibrant living ecosystem. 

Most Oregonians, I believe, would prefer to have the deer and elk population kept in proper balance naturally, not by ODFW making our state's public lands into a gun-filled playground for hunters who, in my view, should find a better hobby than killing defenseless animals.

As a long-time martial artist, may I suggest that if hunters want to feel all brave, powerful, and macho, they should learn how to fight other people (who can actually fight back), rather than shooting wild animals with a high-powered rifle from a safe distance.

And in case you're wondering... I live in a rural area with quite a few coyotes. Cougars also wander through from time to time, leaving their mark with an occasional deer kill. I frequently walk our dog at night after a cougar has been sighted in the area. I enjoy feeling a sense of wildness. 

I also know that no one ever has been killed by a cougar in Oregon, so I'm much safer being around cougars than being around other human beings -- including hunters, who are responsible for many deaths of Oregonians.

[Update: my wife, Laurel, just finished a letter to ODFW about this issue. Here's what Laurel said;]

January 3, 2015

Roger Fuhrman
Information and Education Division
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE
Salem, Oregon 97302

Re: Consideration criteria for new director

Dear Mr. Fuhrman, 

I would like to share my views as an Oregonian and frequent user of Oregon trails and natural areas in regards to considerations for the choice of the new director for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. It appears that the views of hunters and fishermen/women is already well represented on the Fish and Wildlife Commission. 

However, people like me, who are probably well in the majority of Oregonians these days, enjoy nature without killing anything, even fish. We just like to hike, trail bike, kayak or canoe, bird watch, etc, and enjoy seeing nature and being in it. Even when we don’t get out into nature, we want to know our wildlife is being preserved for when we do, or when our children grow up and hike, etc. We pay taxes although we may not be supporting ODFW through fishing licenses or hunting tags. 

We believe that Oregon’s wildlife should be protected and managed for all of us, not just hunters and fishers. If another way is needed to fund ODFW, then other funding sources such as taxes should be sought. I would be happy for an additional tax to adequately manage our wildlife, catch poachers, etc. 

My biggest concern is who the Fish and Wildlife Commission will choose as its new director, since it appears to me that all of the commission members are either hunters or fishers. I know that there will be pressure on the commission to hire a director that emphasizes hunting and fishing enhancement as the main goals of ODFW. 

This could mean discounting the fact that fewer Oregonians are hunting these days,and fewer like the idea of killing wildlife for fun. Very few Oregonians rely on the fish they catch or the prey they shoot for meat, since the cost of hunting and fishing for most people far outweighs the savings in “free” meat; hunting/ fishing tags, gas for travel, equipment, etc. 

It could also mean giving into the pressure from those who falsely believe that if more natural predators like cougar and wolves and coyotes were killed off, there would be healthier and greater numbers of prey like deer and elk. The fact is, that prey populations are far more affected by weather and forage availability, and natural predators who kill sick and weakened prey actually keep herds healthy. 

I would encourage the choice of a new director to be based on which candidate will best represent the views of all Oregonians, and who will base decisions on science and not just pressure from those who have hunting and fishing licenses. The new director should have an adequate education in an area of wildlife science, and not just be an administrator who is an avid fisherman or hunter.  

ODFW should manage Oregon’s wildlife for all Oregonians, not just the minority who hunt and fish. The choice for new director should reflect this. 

(Please distribute my letter to all commission members; I will also send a copy to the Governor. I hope to be able to be at the February 12th “meet and greet” and submit a question, but fear my question may not be one of the chosen ones, and I would not have a chance to fully express my views).

Sincerely, 

Laurel Hines

On the need for wild places, and the wisdom to preserve them

"Visitation of the wild." "Ancient rhythms of Oregon."

Biology professor David Craig's words from yesterday's Salem City Club meeting resonated with me as I spend several hours today picking up tree debris -- lots of it -- from the recent wind storm.

My wife and I are fortunate to live on ten natural acres in rural south Salem. Our large non-easy-care yard is surrounded by large fir and oak trees. If you live in the city, and think your yard is tough to maintain, imagine triple (at least) the toughness.

But here's the beauty of nature: wildness can be perceived everywhere, even in the most urban environment. Craig reminded us of that, saying that bald eagles can be seen flying over downtown Salem. If you look up.

It's the looking that is key. Seeing the wild around us with a sort of poetic eye, one that groks our intimate connection with the wildness of nature. 

There came a point in my yard work today when the oft-repeated "fun" of collecting branches, putting them in a large leaf bag, dragging the bag to a disposal area in the brush, and scattering them about began to wear thin. 

Even with a sip of coffee from my much-beloved Thermos mug to reward and caffeinate myself after each trip.

But sometime in the second hour those phrases Craig uttered popped into my head.

Right away, I looked upon the branches I was picking up differently. They were fallen greetings from the oak and fir trees. They were a "hello and goodbye" from the strong south winds that blew in for a while from the coast.

To the deer, raccoons, squirrels, coyotes, birds, and other creatures that share our property, the branches and wind were no problem. Stuff happens in nature, in the wild. It is something to deal with, not to complain about.

We humans, my wife and I, had decided to live in a house with landscaping. The gutters fill up with leaves and pine needles. The lawn and plant beds don't look good with tree debris scattered all over.

That's our problem, not nature's problem.

Nature, The Wild, doesn't make mistakes. It just does what it has to do. In accord with, of course, laws of nature. Once my mind started down this stream of thought, picking up the branches and disposing of them felt much more pleasant.

I was, as Craig said, moving along with the "ancient rhythms of Oregon." Winds blow. Trees grow. Branches fly off. Where I was putting them, they'll soon decay and become more growth. Which reminds me...

Ten years ago I blogged about this same theme in "The Tao of tree debris," written after a large oak fell into another tree.

“What would the Tao do?” I asked myself. There had to be another way. A natural way. An immediate way. Trees fall in the forest all the time. Nature doesn’t use tarps or burn piles to get rid of the debris. Nature lets lay what has fallen down. Dead stuff soon decays into material for live stuff. I had been looking on the brush as a problem to be disposed of, rather than as a gift to be made use of. I needed a change of perspective.

...At the end of the day all the brush piles were gone. And the debris that I had scattered hither and yon was barely noticeable. I had learned how not to burn. In an afternoon I had dealt with a seemingly difficult problem—how to get rid of the damn brush—that turned out to be easily handled once I stopped considering it so much of a problem.

Life, in the guise of Fallen Tree, taught me a few things. Messes are mostly in the mind. Nature makes use of everything. Death and destruction are fodder for life and creation. Letting things lay usually is best. Renewal comes in its own fashion. It doesn’t have to be forced. There’s no need to burn what doesn’t belong. Let it find its own place to decay, and you won’t go wrong.

There is so much wisdom in wildness. For billions of years, wildness has been doing just fine, bringing our planet to the natural place we humans are enjoying now.

Which is why I get so irked when City of Salem officials turn a blind eye to wildness, choosing to destroy precious islands of Wild in urban areas. I'm thinking about the needless destruction of the U.S. Bank trees, those five beautiful, large, healthy Japanese Zelkovas that were cut down for no good reason.

I especially loved this tree, the one closest to the U.S. Bank entrance.

When I took this photo, I told the tree I'd do everything I could to save it. (Which I did.) I felt like it was a friend, an innocent wild creature that needed saving from a clueless bank president and Public Works director. 

l'm also thinking of the current fight to preserve ancient oaks and other irreplaceable trees that are slated for removal so a desolate parking lot can be built by Salem Hospital.

What the hell is wrong with the "pave it over" minded folks in this town, the City officials, Chamber of Commerce types, and corporate folks who care so much about money and power, and so little about the natural wild world that makes it possible for people to have money, power, and everything else?

It saddens me when my wife and I lose a tree, and we have many hundreds on our ten acres. In an urban area, in Salem proper, the need to preserve islands of wildness is even more pressing. They don't have to be huge, like a giant park.

One beautiful tree. One bird of prey flying overhead. Any visitation from the wild, anyway we feel touched by the ancient rhythms of Oregon -- so precious. Thank you, David Craig, for reminding me of that. 

Global warming is real, David Titley tells Salem City Club

If there were any global warming deniers in the room at today's Salem City Club meeting, I don't see how they could have listened to Rear Admiral (Retired) David Titley and not been persuaded that climate change is happening; it poses a huge threat to humanity; and we need to combat it.

Titley was crisp, organized, humorous, entertaining, and thoroughly believable. The guy's credentials are impressive. 

David W. Titley is a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University and the founding director of their Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk. He is also NOAA's chief operating officer. Before assuming these positions, he was formerly a rear admiral in, and the chief oceanographer of, the U.S. Navy, in which he served for 32 years. He also initiated the Navy's Task Force on Climate Change, and serves on the CNA Corporation's Military Advisory Board.

He talked quite a bit about how climate change threatens national security, the theme of his 2014 op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 

Climate change is an accelerating threat to national security. That’s the finding of a recent report by the CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board, a panel I serve on along with some of our country’s most senior retired military leaders.

Each of us is a hard-nosed leader with decades of experience evaluating national security risks. We have been keeping an eye on climate change for years, first reporting on it as a potential national security threat in 2007.

Since then, we have seen the scientific consensus continue to develop and solidify, while signatures of a warming world — from global temperature trends to severe weather events — strongly suggest that our climate is already changing. And we are increasingly worried about the lack of comprehensive action by the United States and the global community.

Sitting in the back of the room, scribbling away in a notebook as Titley spoke, I was left with these personal most-important takeaways from his talk -- which I'll express a bit more bluntly than Titley did.

(1) Global warming is just about as proven as gravity. The science supporting climate change is solid. We know that the Earth is warming, and why: greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. Anyone who doesn't accept this either hasn't educated themselves, or has a self-centered reason to deny the scientific reality of global warming.

(2) Local officials need to be pressured on global warming. Titley urged action on all fronts to combat climate change: global, national, state, local, individual. Seeing that at least one Salem city councilor was present (Warren Bednarz), I welcomed Tiley's call for citizens to keep asking local officials, "What are you doing to stabilize the climate?" (Check out my Salem Weekly column, "Do global warming deniers run City Hall?")

(3) Civilization is at risk if we don't act. Modern humans, Homo sapiens, have been around for about 100,000 years with essentially the same brain capabilities as we have today. So why did civilization take off around 8,000 years ago? Because, Titley said, we entered an era of climate stability that allowed humans to spend less time and energy on simply surviving. Now human actions are making the Earth's climate unstable -- not good, not at all.

(4) The climate always has changed, but over much longer time periods. Titley showed a graph of how temperature (or carbon dioxide level) has gone up and down over geological time scales, tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Zeroing in on the recent past, he showed how rapidly human-caused climate change is happening. Very unnatural; very dangerous. 

(5) The oceans are sucking up most of the increased heat. I got to ask the last audience question of Titley: "Skeptics say global warming has ceased during the past ten years or so. But isn't it true that the oceans are taking up a disproportionate share of the warming, not the atmosphere?" Yes, that's true, I was told. Eight percent of the increased heat is going into the atmosphere; 92% into the oceans. That's why it is called global warming. Eventually that ocean heat will be emitted into the atmosphere.

(6) Rising oceans threaten military bases and ordinary people. Titley showed a slide of how ocean flooding in a Virginia neighborhood has become much more common the past few decades. The Navy (obviously) has its bases at sea level. Thus both military planners and insurance-reinsurance companies are much concerned about rising sea levels. As should we all be.

(7) Republicans are being idiotic about global warming. OK, Titley didn't say "idiotic." That's my word. But what else could you call the GOP-backed House bill that requires the military to ignore climate change? 

The House passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill on Thursday that would bar the Department of Defense from using funds to assess climate change and its implications for national security.

Titley gave other examples of how military planners such as himself have to avoid using scientically correct terms like "global warming" in reports and funding requests that are read by Congressional Republicans. It's crazy that science committees in both the House and Senate are now run by legislators who are clueless about scientific realities.

(8) The battle against global warming can be won. On the positive side, Titley ended his talk on an optimistic note. He believes that the tide is turning in favor of the truth about what humans are doing to our one and only planet.

I agree. Truth has a way of winning out over lies and falsehoods. It just takes a while.

He alluded to the rapidity of social/cultural change when a tipping point is reached. Though Titley didn't give any examples, I thought "gay marriage." Who would have thought that this nation would have come so far, so fast, on the issue of equal rights for homosexuals?

Optimistic me sees the same thing happening with global warming.

Before too long head-in-the-sand'ers like today's GOP leadership will be laughed at if they persist with their "I'm not a scientist..." bullshit. Hey, you guys aren't gynecologists either, but you sure claim to be experts in what women should do with their bodies. 

As Titley said today, gravity is real no matter if someone claims "Gravity is made up."

Likewise, global warmng is real. It is beginning to bite humanity in the butt. When the pain gets undeniable, even climate change deniers will be forced to acknowledge it.

Lastly... Titley said he met with the Salem Statesman Journal editorial board. I hope they took as many notes as I did. And then will decide to join other newspapers who refuse to publish letters to the editor from global warming deniers. 

The Statesman Journal does this a lot -- publish anti-scientific rants that have zero credibility. Would the SJ print letters claiming the Earth is flat or gravity doesn't exist? I doubt it. So it shouldn't give global warming deniers a forum to express their craziness. 

Republican denial of global warming makes me hate the GOP

Progressive Democratic me actually is a pretty moderate guy.

I was raised by a very conservative mother. I grew up reading Bill Buckley and National Review. I have right-leaning friends. As a long-time Oregonian I fondly recall our state's Governor Tom McCall, along with Senators Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood -- Republicans.

I can forgive today's GOP for taking misguided stands on the Affordable Care Act, immigration reform, and other domestic issues. I can accept their hawkishness on Iran, the Palestinian issue, and other foreign policy matters.

But there is one thing that makes me freaking angry when I hear Republicans spout off about it: denial of the scientific consensus that global warming is happening; humans are responsible for climate change; and the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic.

The GOP cannot be allowed to wreck this planet for future generations. It's that simple: CANNOT. 

I'm fine with political game-playing, horse-trading, and other forms of the usual Washington D.C. bullshit. I've got a high tolerance for politicans throwing their weight around after an election victory like the GOP enjoyed in the 2014 midterms. 

However...

I'm infuriated by "Republicans Vow to Fight E.P.A. and Approve Keystone Pipeline." 

The new Republican Congress is headed for a clash with the White House over two ambitious Environmental Protection Agency regulations that are the heart of President Obama’s climate change agenda.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the next majority leader, has already vowed to fight the rules, which could curb planet-warming carbon pollution but ultimately shut down coal-fired power plants in his native Kentucky. Mr. McConnell and other Republicans are, in the meantime, stepping up their demands that the president approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry petroleum from Canadian oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

I'm outraged by "China Tries to Save Earth; Republicans Furious." 

In a surprise announcement, the United States and China, which combine to produce nearly half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, struck a deal to reduce their emissions. The U.S., which has already pledged to reduce its emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, now promises to reduce them by 26 to 28 percent by 2025. China promises to cap its emissions by no later than 2030 and to produce one- fifth of its energy from zero-emissions sources by then.

...It would be nice to think that evidence like today’s pact would at least soften the GOP’s unyielding certainty about the absolute impossibility of a global climate accord. The near-total refusal of the right to reconsider its denial of the theory of anthropogenic global warming sadly suggests otherwise. James Inhofe, the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a fervent climate science skeptic, has quickly dismissed the deal as a “hollow and not believable" and a “non-binding charade.”

Political and religious craziness is one thing. Anti-scientific craziness that threatens the ability of humans to live safe, happy, and prosperous lives, not only now but for many, many generations to come -- that cannot be tolerated.

I am an extremist when it comes to standing up against this sort of Republican insanity. Take all the money you want from the Koch Brothers and BIg Oil. But GOP, you can't be allowed to drag this country, and indeed our entire planet, into an environmental hell hole. 

I'm confident that a majority of Americans would agree with me that keeping the Earth habitable for humanity is Job #1.

If the GOP doesn't realize this, their 2014 election victory is going to backfire on them big time.

A variety of polls show that a majority of American voters now believe that climate change is occurring, are worried about it, and support candidates who back policies to stop it. In particular, polls show that majorities of Hispanics, young people and unmarried women — the voters who were central to Mr. Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012 — support candidates who back climate change policy.

Why a photo of a dead deer makes me feel hunting is wrong

It wasn't a great way to wake up today: checking my Facebook feed while still in bed and seeing a photo of a deer a relative had shot in Indiana. I felt sad for the dead buck.

But my relative was pleased he'd killed the deer. A bunch of comments from his Facebook friends were universally congratulatory. Nice job. Great looking deer. Congrats and yum! Excellent. What a beautiful rack...

There were more along those lines. My Facebook comment was decidedly different. 

Sad, and even disgusting, says this animal loving vegetarian. Hunting for sport is cruel. Got to speak my mind.

After getting a response from another relative defending killing the deer in the name of wildlife management, I left another comment.

I'm just telling you how I feel. That photo made me feel terrible. OK, maybe killing beautiful wild animals is necessary at times. But humans should do it sparingly with sadness, not gleefully. Other commenters are happy when they see a dead deer photo. I'm saddened.

Here I want to explain why I feel the way I do.

Well, insofar as I know the why. Feelings are mysterious creatures. Much like wild animals do, emotions roam freely within our psyches, arising from hidden places and departing to unknown realms. 

There's obviously a wide gulf between the way I feel about this photo, and how others do. That's fine. We're all different. I didn't intend to be moralistic or judgmental in my comments. Just honest. Which I'll continue to be now.

I'm not out to change hunters' minds. I'm simply sharing what's on my mind.

My first and only kill for sport.
I grew up in Three Rivers, a small rural town in the foothills of California's Sierra Nevada mountains. Deer hunting was common. The usual progression for a boy was bb-gun, pellet gun, .22, deer rifle. I'd progressed to pellet gun.

A neighbor boy and I were playing around with ours. I aimed at a song bird sitting in a bush. It fell down. Dead. Walking over to it, I remember feeling terrible. A moment ago it had been alive. Now it wasn't. I had killed it for no reason.

After that I never fired a gun at a creature that didn't need killing.

I own several guns now, including a shotgun that is used for doing away with ground squirrels who were burrowing under our home's foundation and wrecking our garden. I never feel good when I kill one. Once I shot a gray squirrel by mistake.

When I realized what I'd done, I felt just like I did when I shot the songbird. Terrible. Nobody taught me to feel this way. My mother wanted me to learn how to hunt. I was an avid meat eater. I'd never been exposed to animal rights ideas (this was the early 1960's). 

Killing an animal for no good reason just intuitively seemed wrong to me. Did then. Does now.

I became a vegetarian at the age of 20. Before that, for a while I had continued to eat fish. Then I was served a prawn, all curled up on my plate. As with the bird, I thought, "This animal was alive until it was killed because of me."

I never ate meat or fish again. Forty-six years later, I've got no urge to. Because...

Other animals have conscious lives, just like us. 
It bothers me when people de-animalize themselves.

Humans are animals. After billions of years of evolution, we are related to every other living entity, including bacteria, insects, fish, and other animals. There isn't any sort of gulf or divide between us and them. Life on earth is a continuum.

I've read a lot of books about neuroscience and the philosophy of consciousness. This can be complicated stuff. A key simple idea, though, is that what it means to be conscious is this: there is something like to be a conscious creature, something it is like for that organism. 

This seems undeniable.

I know there is something it is like to be me. You know this also, for you. Every dog or cat lover understands their pets also have conscious lives. Farm animals too. And wild animals. Including deer. 

Before being killed by my relative, the buck was going about its life as a conscious being. Just like we do.

Sure, we don't know what it is like to be a deer. Or a bat. Or any other human, for that matter. It is entirely possible, though, to feel empathy and compassion for other conscious organisms even if we can't know what their consciousness is like.

My wife and I live in rural south Salem, Oregon. Deer abound in our neighborhood. Recently we were about to turn into our driveway when I saw a young buck standing by the side of the road, munching on grass. I stopped the car. 

The deer looked at us. We looked at the deer.

Again, I have no idea what being a deer is like. But looking into its eyes, albeit from afar, it seemed obvious that it was like something to be that deer. To kill that something for no good reason, just for sport -- I could never do that. 

Science fiction films such as "Predator" show us what it would be like to be hunted by aliens who consider humans to be creatures worthy of being killed for sport. I wonder how a deer hunter would feel as his wife, children, and then himself were killed one by one.

Hey, the aliens are just harvesting us for food, or fun, or any reason they come up with.

They're more intelligent than us, with a better ability to kill. So what if we're conscious, as they are? The morality of deer hunting says, "It is OK to kill another highly-evolved conscious creature for no good reason."

It's not all about us humans. 
Look, I understand the argument hunters make about killing deer and other wildlife being necessary to maintain animal populations at a desirable level. This makes some sense. But not a whole lot.

Because the argument is centered on humans. One species, Homo sapiens. The species which is destroying the planet on which it, and every other life form, depends for existence. We are in the midst of a Sixth Extinction caused by us. 

There are many reasons for this ecological disaster, which is being exacerbated by global warming -- another example of the human propensity to wrongly believe, "It's all about us." Meaning, we can do whatever we want to other life forms and the planet, and everything will turn out fine.

Wrong. It won't.

Thoreau wisely said, In wildness is the preservation of the world.

With every bit of wildness destroyed, so is the world. A wild deer is priceless. I'm no Thoreau, but whenever I sense deer, coyotes, racoons, cougars, and the many other animals that live in and pass through our rural neighborhood, I feel enriched.

I can't understand how anyone feels that a dead deer is more valuable to humanity, and the world, than a live deer. I look at the photo of the buck killed by my relative and feel a deep sense of loss. 

Wildness has to be preserved. Or we won't be.

It isn't possible to draw a line and say, "It's OK to destroy wildness up to this point, but no further," because history tells us that this line keeps on being pushed in the direction of more destruction.

One dead wild deer. No big deal. There's plenty more beautiful majestic bucks where that one came from.

That's the attitude of hunters. Humans know best. Killing wildness is fine. It's all about us. Other animals exist to serve our needs, not to exist as conscious creatures on their own.

I disagree. I have since I killed that song bird at age 12 or thereabouts. I'm pretty damn sure I always will. 

Lastly, my wife wants me to mention this additional truth.

If some deer need to be killed to "cull the herd," it makes no sense to kill the best specimens with the best genes and largest antlers. This is exactly opposite to what happens naturally.

Wolves and other top predators kill the weakest animals, not the strongest. This leads to a healthier herd, a natural balance of nature. But we humans jump in and interfere with nature's wisdom. We irrationally fear and hate top predators like wolves and cougars, killing them needlessly almost to extinction.

Then humans complain, "There are too many deer."

Or, if the population of top predators has been allowed to recover, hunters gripe, "There are too few deer." Either way, we've messed around with nature's wildness, and nature is telling us Back off, you idiots. Understand that you are part of nature, not separate.

How contaminated is Salem's Riverfront Park? More info on DEQ testing.

The story keeps getting more interesting of how the Salem City Council is spending $200,000 to conduct additional tests for dioxin and other nasty chemicals in and around heavily used Riverfront Park. 

Yesterday I blogged about a "New City of Salem 'corporate welfare' giveaway to Mountain West Investment." It bothered me that public urban renewal funds were being used to test for contaminants on private land that is now, and will remain, owned by Mountain West Investment. 

I could understand why the City wanted to test for pollution from the old Boise Cascade operations on the 3.8 acres west of the railroad tracks. Mountain West has agreed to sell this part of its property to the City so it could be added on to Riverfront Park. 

But, I wrote:

It’s like me wanting to buy a lot owned by someone who also has an adjacent abandoned gas station with a possibly leaking old storage tank. The guy wants ME to do the testing on the tank to make sure it isn’t releasing contaminants into the lot I want to buy.

 

My reaction would be, “Hey, dude, it’s your gas station. It’s your problem. Deal with it. Then we can talk about going ahead with the lot sale once you assure me you’ve taken care of the mess on your own property.”

There's more to this issue, though. Now I've got even more questions about how City officials are handling this issue.

First, the City Council, Mayor, and City Manager discussed the additional $200,000 worth of environmental testing in a closed executive session. A consituent of Councilor Laura Tesler asked her to explain why taxpayers were paying for testing on Mountain West Investment property.

Tesler replied that since this was discussed in an executive session, she couldn't say anything about the meeting. So Tesler told the constituent that she'd try to get information from City staff.

Now, I don't think it is a wild, crazy, Green-freak, eco-zealot notion to expect that discussions about possible dioxin and other contamination adjacent to or in a public park should be completely open to the citizenry. 

The only reason I can think of why this was discussed in a closed executive session is that confidential matters relating to Mountain West Investment business plans and financing were talked about.

If so, this fits into my "corporate welfare" conspiracy theory. If not, what other reason would there be to shut out the public and press?

Second, contrary to the impression given in Statesman Journal stories, most of the additional testing is being done on RIverfront Park land already owned by the City, and already used by the public. I'd wondered how finding an underground pipe on the railroad right of way adjacent to the 3.8 acre planned purchase could boost the cost of DEQ testing from $150,000 to $350,000.

Testing is required by the Department of Environmental Quality before it will issue the Prospective Purchaser Agreement (PPA) sought by the City of Salem. A PPA limits the liability of someone who purchases previously contaminated land -- sort of a "clean bill of health" guarantee.

But a PPA only is granted for land that hasn't already been purchased. So this part of a Statesman Journal story isn't accurate.
Download Salem council to pay for more environmental studies

The council agreed to use $200,000 in urban renewal funds for the environmental work. The environmental studies are needed to protect the city's interests, as it prepares to buy 3.8 acres for an expansion of Riverfront Park, city officials said.

This can't be true, given what John Wales, the City's Urban Development Director, said in an email message to the Councilor Tesler constituent (full message can be found in a continuation to this post).

The proposed new tests along the banks of the Pringle Creek and the Slough will be paid with Urban Renewal funds from the Downtown Riverfront and South Waterfront URAs. Of the 19 proposed test sites, four are located on/or adjacent to the 3.8 acre Park Parcel while the remaining 15 are located on the edge of Riverfront Park.

Thus only four of the 19 tests appear to be needed for the Prospective Purchaser Agreement.

Fifteen are on current Riverfront Park property. Meaning, City officials are concerned that there could be dioxin and other contaminants on the banks of Pringle Creek and the Willamette River Slough that are already accessible to park users.

This raises some questions:

(1) How did City officials become aware that part of Riverfront Park could be contaminated by noxious chemicals? How long have they known this?

(2) Given that Riverfront Park has been converted from a former Boise Cascade industrial site, was adequate environmental testing done before the property became a public park? Why is the shoreline testing only being done now?

(3) Won't the footings for the soon-to-be-built Minto Brown Pedestrian Bridge disturb the ground in the area of the 15 Riverfront Park test sites? Will this increase the cost of the bridge, if contaminants are found?

(4) Why are urban renewal funds being used to pay for the entire $200,000 worth of environmental testing, since only about $42,000 of that amount (4/19 of $200,000) apparently is for test sites related to the Prospective Purchaser Agreement sought as part of the deal to buy 3.8 acres from Mountain West Investment for an addition to Riverfront Park?

Regarding that last question, I'm no expert on urban renewal. But I've always thought it had to do with improving rundown areas and changing their character, not maintaining what already exists in a city.

Most of the $200,000 is being used to test for contaminants in an existing city park, Riverfront Park. Expenditure of that money seemingly has little or nothing to do with the proposed purchase of the 3.8 acre addition to Riverfront Park. It seems to me the 15 test sites should be considered park "maintenance," while the four test sites related to the new potential park acreage is "renewal."

[Update: I just noticed that this agenda item for the Urban Renewal portion of the September 8 City Council meeting claimed that the entire $200,000 is needed to complete the purchase of the 3.8 acres. This seems decidedly misleading. How is testing for contaminants on property the City already owns, which have no way of affecting the 3.8 acres (being downhill and downstream of the 3.8 acres) needed for "environmental due diligence" regarding the proposed purchase?]

(a)  Grant Agreement for Environmental Due Diligence Necessary to Purchase 3.8 Acre Park Parcel – Ward 1 – Board Member Bennett – CANDO (UD)

Recommended Action:  Approve the grant agreement, attached to the staff report, to provide $170,000 of Riverfront-Downtown and $30,000 of South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area funds, a total of $200,000, to the City of Salem for environmental due diligence necessary to acquire 3.8 acres of land adjacent to Riverfront Park.

I look forward to learning how City councilors and other officials answer these questions. If I don't have an accurate or complete understanding about what is going on here, I'm open to being educated.

Comment away on this post, City leaders. (I'll send them a link.)

Here's the complete message from John Wales, and my reply to him.

Climate change is the big job-killer, not EPA carbon regulations

It was an interesting juxtaposition of truth-telling and fear-mongering.

Sunday night my wife and I watched the most recent Cosmos episode, which was about global climate change. Scary scientific conclusions, as recapped by the LA Times.

Here's the thing: Nature doesn't care about your politics, or what you want to be true. It just does its thing according to the well-established rules described by science. We ignore reality at our peril.

The sharp rise since the late 19th century means that the average global temperature is rising, with some pretty devastating consequences for our environment. Melting ice caps, rising sea levels, heat waves, record droughts, severe storms, mass extinctions — this is the legacy we're leaving to future generations, unless we find the collective will to do something about it and become better stewards of our planetary home.

Then on Monday the Environmental Protection Agency announced new regulations on existing power plants to curb the carbon pollution that is causing global warming. They're market-friendly and required by law.  

But climate change deniers freaked out, predictably, saying the regulations would lead to the loss of many jobs. They ignored the fact that the coal industry has been losing jobs for a long time -- down more than half since 1985.

Plus, renewable energy is a growth industry. Coal is on its way out. It's an outmoded way of producing electricity. It's good for both the planet and the American economy to wean ourselves off of coal as soon as possible.

Fortunately quite a few corporations aren't buying the U.S. Chamber of Commerce bullshit. 

Days before President Obama’s EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy announced sweeping new rules to limit the amount of carbon pollution that existing power plants can dump into the atmosphere, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report blasting the then-unreleased regulations as certain to raise electricity prices, kill jobs, and slow the economy.

But leading climate-friendly members of [the] Chamber don’t want to be associated with its anti-climate report. Several member companies, contacted by ThinkProgress, declined to endorse the Chamber’s efforts against the administration’s move to address a direct cause of climate change.

Good for them. This is a sound decision, from both a scientific and business standpoint. Voters strongly support the new carbon pollution standards. Just as with gay marriage, it isn't smart for a company to be on the wrong side of history.

Reality can't be argued with in the long-term. Eventually truth triumphs over fiction. Global warming is real. Anyone who watched Neil deGrasse Tyson explain the science of it in the last Cosmos episode should understand this. 

Like I said before, scary stuff. Tyson said:

We just can't seem to stop burning up all those buried trees from way back in the carboniferous age, in the form of coal, and the remains of ancient plankton, in the form of oil and gas. If we could, we'd be home free climate wise.

Instead, we're dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth hasn't seen since the great climate catastrophes of the past, the ones that led to mass extinctions. We just can't seem to break our addiction to the kinds of fuel that will bring back a climate last seen by the dinosaurs, a climate that will drown our coastal cities and wreak havoc on the environment and our ability to feed ourselves.

All the while, the glorious sun pours immaculate free energy down upon us, more than we will ever need. Why can't we summon the ingenuity and courage of the generations that came before us? The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What's our excuse?

Well, greed. Ignorance. Religious fundamentalism. Selfishness. 

These aren't good excuses. Future generations will look back at the early 21st century and wonder how so many people could have been so blind to the reality of impending climate doom. 

Hopefully we will avert catastrophe. The EPA's power plant regulations are a step in the right direction. But we need to do more. A lot more.

Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings

I like the subtitle of my just-released "Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings" report.

The true story of how City officials and the bank president cut down five large, healthy, beautiful downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it.

The highly readable report is based on new information I got about this debacle after forking out $726.61 for public record requests that reveal for the first time how truly outrageous the tree killings were.

Download Outrage - Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings  (1.5 MB PDF file)

These trees were entirely innocent. They weren't diseased. The sidewalk wasn't being damaged by them. They could have been pruned rather than killed. The City of Salem's own tree expert and its Shade Tree Advisory Committee said so repeatedly. As did arborists and dozens of concerned citizens who loved the five State Street trees and wanted them saved.

Yet the trees were cut down for no good reason. None. Zilch. Nada. 

When you read the "10 reasons to be outraged by how this stump came to be" in my report, you'll understand why I called the report what I did: Outrage. 

Whether or not you live in Salem, Oregon, if you care about ethical government, trees, the environment, urban livability -- or just enjoy a tale of special interest deal-making gone wild -- you need to read the 18 page report. 

Download Outrage - Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings

This is a case study of how city government shouldn't work. 

Here the Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, ignored the law, facts, expert advice, advisory committee recommendations, and lots of public testimony so he could keep a back-room verbal promise to the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton, to cut the five large, healthy, beautiful trees down. 

The extra-legal promise itself is bad enough. Worse, Fernandez made that promise two years before the bank started the required process of filing an application to remove the trees. 

Even so, Public Works Director Fernandez was all set to order that the trees be pruned, rather than removed, until bank president Allbritton reminded him of that "just between us" deal they'd made together. It didn't matter that Albritton was unable to give a single coherent reason why the trees needed to be killed.

After Fernandez spoke with the bank president, everything changed. 

Allbritton got an unusual second chance to argue his extremely flimsy tree-killing case. He lobbied city councilors, who weren't bothered by Allbritton's mention of the verbal promise.

Maybe because this is the way the City of Salem habitually does things under its current leadership -- working out deals with special interests behind the scenes, then going through a show of holding public hearings and issuing a formal decision.

Like I say throughout the report, outrageous. There's more juicy details in the 18 pages, of course.

Download Outrage - Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings

The report includes an opinion letter from my land use and environmental law attorney which demolishes (1) Public Works Director Fernandez' false claim that he was obligated by an ordinance to allow the trees to be cut down, and (2) the repeated inaccurate assertion by City staff that Fernandez' decision couldn't be appealed. 

Feel free to leave comments or questions about my report. See "Comments" below. Or you can email me.

In the Conclusion section, I say:

This is no way to run city government. 

It isn’t a liberal or a conservative issue. Democrats, Republicans, and independents should be equally outraged when important decisions are made by officials that are at odds with facts, the law, citizen values, and the broad public interest.

Currently revisions to Salem’s tree ordinance are being considered. Hopefully ordinance changes will ensure that indefensible tree removal decisions like the one described in this report never will happen again. 

However, City government carries on. 

City officials will be making other decisions that affect Salem’s pocketbook, well-being, economic development, and quality of life. Changes have to be made at City Hall. Business as usual means more bad decisions like the U.S. Bank tree removal debacle.

Citizens shouldn’t have to spend $726.61, like I did, to learn why and how local appointed and elected officials are making important public policy decisions. Salem’s City government should be open, transparent, and responsive to the broad public interest, not narrow special interests. 

Update: I did a 29 minute interview about the U.S. Bank tree killings on Ken Adam's "Valley View" program. Have a look. Ken asked good questions and I feel like my answers were pretty damn good also.

 

Salemians, come see "Wild Things" April 3, Loucks Auditorium

My wife, Laurel, is a big animal lover. Well, she loves small animals too. All kinds, really.

She has worked hard to put on a free showing of "Wild Things" next Thursday, April 3, 6:30 pm, at the Loucks Auditorium adjacent to the Salem, Oregon Library.

(Not the 1998 erotic thriller; the 2013 award-winning film about how the federal Wildlife Services agency needlessly kills tens of thousands of carnivores each year.)

Laurel wrote a Salem Weekly opinion piece, "The Taxpayer Funded War Against Predators," about the film and Wildlife Services. Excerpt: 

Few people know that a federal agency uses both cruel and brutal  traps, along with dangerous poisons, to kill our native wildlife. Most people have no idea about the scope of the killing by the USDA Wildlife Services agency. Every year it kills thousands of coyotes, as well as cougars and wolves, at taxpayer expense, mostly for the benefit of private ranchers.

Most dog owners are unaware that dogs in Oregon have fallen victim to the barbaric traps. Some have died in traps while their horrified owners tried helplessly to free them, one as recently as last spring. Wildlife Services traps have been set close to publicly used hiking trails, often with little warning to the public.

Thousands of non-target wildlife are killed in the traps. Former Wildlife Services trappers say the motto was “shoot, shovel, and shut up” when a pet or non-target animal was found trapped.

...It is time for a change in what Wildlife Services does. The public needs to learn about the agency’s little-known needless war against top predators, and pressure elected officials to take action. See “Wild Things.”

The film will be followed by a panelist discussion and Q&A. Panelists include Dr. Robert Beschta of OSU and John Lungren, an environmental attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center.

Here's the trailer for Wild Things:

 

I ask Salem-area leaders about climate change

"Science isn't political."

I applauded inwardly when I heard Jane Lubchenco utter those words yesterday at a Salem City Club meeting. 

She mostly talked about her experience as Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA). Lubchenco was appointed by President Obama in 2009 and served until 2013. Currently she is a Professor of Biology and Zoology at Oregon State University.

After the meeting I waited around for a chance to talk with Dr. Lubchenco. My question for her related to what I said recently in Time for public officials to "come out"...about climate change.

What is more important for life on Earth than having a planet that supports the sort of human living we've been accustomed to? And not just for we who are living today, but also our children, grandchildren, and generations to come.

So I'm planning to ask our local public officials, elected and appointed, whether they agree with the scientific consensus that (1) global warming is occurring, and (2) humans are mostly responsible for this. I might also ask those who answer "yes" if they think we need to do something about global warming/climate change.

Since Lubchenco mentioned climate change often in her City Club talk, I wanted to ask her if she could think of any reason why local public officials shouldn't be willing to say whether they agree with the scientific consensus about climate change/global warming.

"No," she told me. Which is the answer I expected, since she'd just said that science isn't political.

Science seeks to learn about the nature of shared reality, the world everyone inhabits -- conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, religious believers and non-believers, everybody.

Lubchenco's talk spurred me to compose a message I'll be sending to Salem-area public officials. And other local leaders: newspaper editors/publishers; Chamber of Commerce executives; corporate and non-profit organization leaders; people running for elected office.

Here's what I wrote.

Dear _______________:

Since you are a Salem-area leader, I'd like to know your answers to three simple questions about climate change.

Here's why: science isn't political.

People can (and do) disagree about all kinds of things. But science offers us a common ground where we can agree on basic facts about the world we share. With that foundation, debates about policy questions can be much more productive.

We can focus much more on "what should be" than "what is." 

I'm deeply concerned about climate change/global warming. In my view, this is an issue that must be dealt with at all levels of society: national, state, county, local, organizational, individual. I'm focused on local. 

If Salem-area leaders are in agreement about the problem, seemingly policies aimed at solutions will be easier to come by. This is why I'm conducting this survey: to learn how you and others view climate change.

I look forward to receiving your reply to this message. A simple "yes," "no," or "not sure" to each question is welcomed. Any other thoughts you would like to add would be extra-welcomed. 

Responses will be made public. Including my own. I'm a "yes," "yes," "yes." However, even though I'm hopeful this will be everybody's response, I realize it likely won't be. Which is fine. Coming to agreement on scientific facts isn't possible unless we know where (and why) we disagree. 

Here are the three questions for you:

(1) Do you believe that global warming is occurring, and is causing the Earth's climate to change in various ways?

(2) Do you believe that humans are mostly responsible for the global warming/climate change that is occurring?

(3) Do you believe that humans need to engage in actions to deal with both the causes of global warming and its detrimental effects on humanity?

Please don't be overly concerned about the precise wording of these questions. There are many ways they could have been phrased.

I just tried to get their meaning roughly right: (1) Is global warming happening? (2) Are humans mostly responsible for it? (3) Should we do something about global warming?

Sincerely,
Brian Hines

Time for public officials to "come out"... about climate change

Global warming is causing massive changes to the Earth's climate. Humans are responsible for most of the warming. 

This is the consensus of 97% of the world's climate experts. Anyone who doesn't take these facts seriously is a danger to humanity.

Here's a quote from Elizabeth Kolbert's book, "The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History." I found it in an Amazon reader review when I was trying to decide whether to order the book. (I did order a copy.)

"If you want to think about why humans are so dangerous to other species, you can picture a poacher in Africa carrying an AK-47 or a logger in the Amazon gripping an ax, or, better still, you can picture yourself, holding a book on your lap."

Actually, the problem of extinction is even worse than this.

Humans are not only causing countless other species to go extinct, matching the record of past global disasters like a large asteroid hitting our planet, our trashing of the environment through carbon pollution and other activities threatens Homo sapiens as well. 

We need to protect many species to help our own.

It is often forgotten how dependent we are on other species. Ecosystems of multiple species that interact with one another and their physical environments are essential for human societies.

These systems provide food, fresh water and the raw materials for construction and fuel; they regulate climate and air quality; buffer against natural hazards like floods and storms; maintain soil fertility; and pollinate crops. The genetic diversity of the planet’s myriad different life-forms provides the raw ingredients for new medicines and new commercial crops and livestock, including those that are better suited to conditions under a changed climate.

For this reason and many others, human-caused climate change is the biggest problem facing humanity. Yet a disturbingly large number of people either refuse to admit that global warming is happening, or deny that humans are the cause.

Even more disturbing: among these global warming skeptics and deniers are public officials who have a big say in governmental policy decisions that affect our carbon footprint (huge, and trampling on the environment more powerfully with every passing day).

It's important for citizens to know who they are. It's long past time for a "coming out" on global warming. Public officials need to be transparent about what they know and believe on this super-important issue. 

I don't care about their sexual orientation, drug/alcohol use, or other personal habits and characteristics. I do care about whether they agree with the scientific consensus on global warming. 

After all, what is more important for life on Earth than having a planet that supports the sort of human living we've been accustomed to? And not just for we who are living today, but also our children, grandchildren, and generations to come.

So I'm planning to ask our local public officials, elected and appointed, whether they agree with the scientific consensus that (1) global warming is occurring, and (2) humans are mostly responsible for this. I might also ask those who answer "yes" if they think we need to do something about global warming/climate change.

Tonight I tried this notion out on a group of friends. 

Most thought it was a good idea. Maybe a great idea. (Probably was me who said that.) But one person said, "Many public officials won't respond to you. What will you do then?"

My response: "Declining to openly agree with an essentially indisputable scientific fact would be an act that speaks for itself. It would be like saying no comment to someone who asked if they believed in gravity or electromagnetism. Shunning an opportunity to agree with a scientific consensus reveals a person's mindset almost as clearly as if they directly stated their disagreement with that consensus."

I'm looking forward to learning how Salem's Mayor, City Manager, Public Works Director, and City Councillors respond to my simple two or three question survey. Also, how the Marion County Commissioners and other top county officials do.

Hopefully they are in tune with one of the most important findings of modern science. If not, some education is in order. And some kicking out of office, if the educating isn't embraced.

Cougar bill killed, thankfully, in 2013 Oregon legislature

My wife and I agree with Democratic state Represenative Brian Clem on most issues. But not on allowing individual counties to overturn Oregon's statewide ban on using dogs to hunt cougars. 

This legislative session Clem sponsored House Bill 2624. The bill would have permitted county-by-county votes on a question that a majority of Oregonian voters said "NO" to twice: whether dogs should be allowed in cougar hunting.

Thankfully, HB 2624 never made it out of committee in the state Senate.

How to manage mountain lions became one of the more hotly debated issues of the session. Clem led the charge to allow counties to opt out -- by a local vote -- of the law that bans the use of hounds to hunt the lions. He won big in the House, only to see the bill die in the Senate, stymied by Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, a Portland Democrat who chairs the main environmental committee.

There are two main reasons why HB 2624 was a really bad idea. I talked about both of them in written testimony that I submitted to the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (attached in full as a continuation to this post).

First, allowing counties to opt out of voter-approved statewide initiatives would set a horrible precedent. I told the committee:

No longer would statewide initiatives truly apply in the entire state. The legislature will have given a green light to those who fail to defeat an initiative to say, “Hey, you let individual counties opt out of the cougar initiative; now we want the ability to have counties opt out of [whatever].”

Consider Measure 49, a reform of Measure 37, which passed in 2007 with over 60% of Oregonians voting in favor. Yet majorities in many counties were in favor of a weakened land use system. Imagine the legal chaos if a county could opt out of Measure 49. Or any statewide law that a majority of voters in that county deemed unacceptable to them.

Yes, the legislature would have to authorize the ability to opt out of a law. But if you do this in HB 2624, the gate will be opened for other attempts to undo the statewide will of Oregonians -- leading to a balkanization of our state. We already are unduly divided by unnecessary political rancor. Do we really want to add to that?

Second, cougars, a.k.a. mountain lions, are not a real problem in Oregon. They are an extremely minor threat to people (hugely less than domestic dogs are), and don't do much damage to livestock. So why kill them?

Well, my wife sat through several HB 2624 hearings. Apparently deer hunters are irked that cougars are killing deer -- which, of course, is what cougars do. And why cougars, wolves, and other top predators are part of a healthy ecosystem.

Hunters kill the largest and healthiest game animals. Top predators tend to kill the smallest and weakest. Thus cougars do a better job at game management than hunters do. No reason to hunt them with dogs, as I said in my testimony.

No one has ever been killed by a cougar in Oregon. Many people have been killed by hunters. So if we're really concerned about protecting human life, there should be a thinning of the ranks of hunters, not of cougars.

Irrational hysteria is the only reason this bill has been introduced. My wife and I live around cougars. I've walked by fresh cougar deer kills. I frequently take walks at night in woods frequented by cougars. I'm not afraid of cougars.

Hopefully legislators will become similarly educated about these valuable top predators before they vote on HB 2624. Just as wolf management shouldn't be based on "big bad wolf" fairy tales, neither should cougar management.

Below is the rest of what I said in my testimony. I sure hope I never have to submit something similar again. Let this issue die, Representative Clem.

Leave cougars alone, Oregon legislators. Kill HB 2624 instead.

Here we go again. Another session of the Oregon legislature; another misguided attempt to undo the voter's banning (twice!) of using dogs to hunt cougars.

And once again, legislation in search of a problem to justify it. House Bill 2624, introduced by Rep. Brian Clem of Salem, would let counties out of the statewide ban if voters in a county approved this.

Yet nobody has ever been killed by a cougar in Oregon. Cougar complaints are declining. 

Opponents called the bills unnecessary because complaints of cougar encounters are down while cougar kills are up, according to state statistics. They said the bills would undo the will of voters, and they questioned the state's ability to count cougars accurately.

Scott Beckstead, Oregon director of the Humane Society of the United States came armed with data from the state that show a steep decline in the number of cougar complaints, from a high of 1,072 in 1999, to 287 in 2012. Over the same period, the data show, the number of cougars killed by hunters has risen from 157 to 242.

Voters didn't bar cougar and bear hunting, Beckstead noted. And they allowed the continued use of dogs to hunt problem or dangerous animals, he said.

"These bills go far beyond that," Beckstead said. "They allow the use of dogs and bait for sport. The voters of Oregon have said they don't want that."

Cougars benefit Oregon's environment. They are part of the balance of nature. They cause very few problems for humans. People are hugely more dangerous to people. (See here, here, here, and here.)

As I said in a previous post:

Pop quiz: how many people have been killed by a cougar in Oregon? Is it (a) 126, (b) 18, or (c) none.

From all the hysteria over "managing" the cougar population (which really means needlessly killing them), you'd think the answer would be greater than zero. But it isn't.

No one has ever been killed by a cougar in Oregon. Many people have been killed by hunters. So if we're really concerned about protecting human life, there should be a thinning of the ranks of hunters, not of cougars.

Irrational hysteria is the only reason this bill has been introduced. My wife and I live around cougars. I've walked by fresh cougar deer kills. I frequently take walks at night in woods frequented by cougars. I'm not afraid of cougars.

Hopefully legislators will become similarly educated about these valuable top predators before they vote on HB 2624. Just as wolf management shouldn't be based on "big bad wolf" fairy tales, neither should cougar management.

Cougars can't contact Oregon legislators. But you can. Speak for them. Prevent needless killing of these marvelous animals. Predator Defense tells you how to do it. Click on that link. Now.

Even though an April 2 public hearing already has been held, legislators on the Oregon House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee need to hear that people don't want the ban on hunting cougars with dogs, and bears with bait, to be overturned. 

Their email addresses are here.

Human-caused global warming continues as predicted

Thankfully, the influence of global warming deniers appears to be shrinking steadily. Reality has a way of weeding out those who fail to respect it.

Even though this can take a while, truthful facts win out in the end.

But fossil fuel industry-funded deniers, aided and abetted by anti-science media outlets like Fox News, continue to distort the disturbing truth of how humans are warming the Earth's climate much more rapidly than nature has ever done it on her/its own.

For example, when I briefly channel surf onto right-wing talk radio, fairly frequently I hear that "global warming has stopped."

That's bullshit, of course. Yet lies often have a modicum of truth sprinkled over the top of them to make the falsehood easier to swallow.

Climate Progress has a great graph that shows how the B.S. is promulgated in the post, "As Scientists Predicted, Global Warming Continues." (You'll probably need to click on the image below to see the animation; or click on the link and scroll down to the graph.)

Here's the explanation of how the "skeptics" are twisting the truth as known by reputable climate scientists. 

One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer?

Temperatures at Earth’s surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year.

An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 – 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth’s surface relatively cool.

Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends. One of my favorite examples of this manipulation of statistics is shown an animated graph called “The Escalator”, created by skepticalscience.com (Figure 1).

There's another highly informative bit of truth-telling in this post: a short video that shows clearly how human-caused global warming continues on unabated, once the transitory effects of volcanic activity and El Nino are taken out of the long term temperature trend.

 

Oregonian wastes paper on global warming denier Gordon Fulks

Oregon's largest newspaper, the Oregonian, is not-so-slowly sinking into irrelevancy. That's my considered opinion, at least.

As noted in a recent post about a global warming story that downplayed scientific fact and played up a local meteorologist's unscientific denial of climate change, I've noted a distinct right-wing tilting in both the news and editorial sections during the past few years.

After reading an absurd January 19 op-ed by Gordon Fulks, "The Changing Climate of Climate Change," that was prominently displayed by Oregonian editors, I'm even more convinced that the newspaper has joined the Republican war on science.

It pains me to copy and paste even one word of Fulks' bullshit, but I'll force myself.

The evidence causing great grief is the refusal of the global temperature to increase for the past 15 years. It sloshes back and forth as one would expect on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in equilibrium, but does not warm as some claimed it would with slowly increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Consequently, cracks are developing in the scientific facade supporting the dogma.

Reading the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is much like reading Pravda during the Cold War: You do not look for beliefs, but for hints of change. In a recent paper (not peer-reviewed), newly elected members touted their belief that they had found the "fingerprint" of greenhouse gases. 

Likely the Oregonian will start publishing op-ed screeds denying evolution and the big bang.

Why not?

Basically there's as much scientific evidence supporting human-caused global warming as there is for how life came to be as it on our planet, and how the universe came into being. Anyone who peruses the Climate Progress posts would know this.

For example: 

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) has finally published its findings on the cause of recent global warming. This Koch-funded reanalysis of millions of temperature observations from around the world, “A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011,” concludes:

… solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy.

...Muller further explained:

Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.

The black line, with 95% confidence intervals on either side, shows the observed global temperature (more accurately measured since the early 1800s). The red line comes from a mathematical climate change model using only volcanic activity and human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Bingo. The two lines coincide closely, showing that Gordon Fulks is wrong, wrong, wrong. 

So the Oregonian wasted a lot of paper and ink on an op-ed that contained not even a scrap of valid opinionating, because Fulks denies a core fact: the Earth is rapidly warming, and human activity is the cause.

The editorial board should be embarassed.

There's plenty of room for different opinions about how the United States should deal with global warming, including how actively governments should act to reduce carbon emissions, versus leaving this to voluntary efforts.

But giving major op-ed "air" time to someone who is horribly ignorant about basic scientific facts, that should be a journalistic no-no. Several letters to the editor that were published a few days later (kudos to the Oregonian for that) showed how scientifically off-base Fulks is.

Here's one of the letters:

As a climate scientist who actively works and publishes in this field, I know what most of my colleagues also know. Temperatures and sea levels are rising, glaciers and sea ice are melting, and man-made greenhouse gases are to blame.

Gordon Fulks, however, in his Jan. 20 column ("The changing climate of climate change"), disagrees. Can he be right? Let's examine his arguments.

Fulks claims that global temperatures have not risen during the past 15 years. This is not true. Most heat trapped by carbon dioxide and other gases added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, as clearly seen in measurements available at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website. Could the warming observed during the past 100 years be from heat that "sloshes back and forth" between the oceans and the atmosphere, as Fulks claims, or changes in the sun? No.

Even former climate skeptic Richard Muller, who has recently re-examined the surface temperature measurements, comes to the same conclusions as other climate scientists before him: Humans are the main cause.

Fulks flunks climate science. He cherry-picks information that supports his conclusion and ignores the rest. That's not science. Could it be that Fulks is right and a new ice age is imminent and all the academies of sciences that predict further warming are wrong? Of course.

But it is similarly unlikely that smoking is healthy and all medical associations are conspiring to fool you with their "radical" views on tobacco.

ANDREAS SCHMITTNER 
Corvallis  
Schmittner is an associate professor in Oregon State University's College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences. 

Obama gets serious about climate change. Finally.

Yes. Yes. Yes. 

I could hear my brain screaming those words when I came across President Obama's strong statement about global warming in his second inauguation address.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.

Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition. We must lead it.

We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries. We must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure, our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

Or maybe my psyche was picking up similar sentiments from countless environmentalists who have been waiting for Obama to get serious about the most serious threat faced by humanity. Including a relieved, but still somewhat skeptical, Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm.

We will soon see if these words have any meaning whatsoever — since approving the Keystone XL pipeline would utterly vitiate them.

True. As would approval of exporting coal from mines in Wyoming and Montana through ports in Oregon and Washington. 

Many people here in the Pacific Northwest are concerned about the health effects of giant coal trains spewing coal dust across the countryside. However, a greater concern is how burning all that coal would affect global warming. 

An article in the October 13, 2012 New Scientist, "The Next Climate War," conveyed the uncomfortable facts.

PLANS for mega exports of US coal are poised to become the next flashpoint in the battle over climate change. The industry wants to massively increase shipments of coal to China and other energy-hungry Asian nations. Such a move would undo the environmental benefits of weaning US power plants off the carbon-rich fuel and lock developing countries into decades of dirty power.

So far, protests about the proposed exports have mostly been local affairs, led by those living along the railroads that will transport the coal from mines in Wyoming and Montana to planned ports on the Pacific coast. There's been nothing like the national controversy surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline - the plan to pump oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas. Yet according to New Scientist's analysis of calculations by carbon emissions specialists, the consequences for the global climate of allowing the coal exports could exceed those of completing the oil pipeline.

...According to New Scientist's calculations, based on emissions figures for Powder River Basin coal estimated by the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh, burning the exported coal, plus its extraction and transport by rail and ship, could cause annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 194 million tonnes of carbon dioxide if just the first three ports are built. That rises to as much as 266 million tonnes if all five come online.

To put these numbers in context, New Scientist asked Adam Brandt of Stanford University in California, who specialises in estimating greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel sources, to produce similar figures for Keystone XL. If the pipeline flows at its maximum capacity, he calculates that total annual greenhouse emissions resulting from the project, again including those due to extraction and transport of the fuel as well as its final use, would equate to 212 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

If the ports aren't built, much of the Powder River Basin coal would probably remain in the ground for the foreseeable future.

Stop the XL pipeline. Stop coal exports.

That's what the United States needs to do for future generations. And for ourselves. I hope President Obama puts his actions where his inaugural mouth was yesterday.

Best planned community in Portland, Oregon area?

Like I said in my previous post about a planned community in Monmouth, Oregon, almost certainly someday my wife and I will want to leave behind the large house on ten rural acres that simultaneously drives us crazy and makes us happy.

There's a lot of people akin to us.

Baby boomers (we're in our 60's) who are in good health, have lived in a non-easy-care home for a long time, aren't interested in a traditional retirement community, and are beginning to think about where they'd like to live when "let's move" becomes not just a idle thought, but an urgent need or desire.

Reading about the Edwards Addition Master Plan, the community in Monmouth, got us thinking about what other planned communities are near Salem, where we live now.

Some Google searching today revealed... surprisingly few. Kind of disappointing.

We'd figured that the green, hip, cool, cutting-edge Portland area would have more planned communities where green, hip, cool, cutting-edge older folks like my wife and me could feel comfortable.

"Planned" is the key word.

Northwest Oregon has lots of wonderful neighborhoods. However, we're inclined toward communities with some sort of master plan, preferably with strong sustainable, environmentally conscious, outdoor activity, and dog-friendly components.

Currently we live in a 70's era planned community, Spring Lake Estates. There are easements behind most of the small acreages that allow quite a few miles of hiking/riding trails. We also have a nine acre lake on common property, and a neighborhood association. 

A planned community brings people together. It fosters more of a sense of, well, community. Without that, getting to know your neighbors and feeling like you belong is more difficult.

Though nowhere near ready to move yet, we've begun to explore options in our general area. Northward toward Portland, with all its amenities (yes, also headaches) draws us more than anywhere else in Oregon. We'd consider staying in Salem if a planned development didn't have the "blah" factor that curses this town.

Here's the communities I've found so far, along with my initial largely-uninformed snap judgment about each. If anyone has more suggestions, please leave a comment. 

Edwards Addition, Monmouth. Nice vibe. Pleasant town. Just fifteen minutes away, though. Put this sort of development in a different location, and we'd be more intrigued.

Pringle Creek Community, Salem. We've toured this development several times. A lot to like here. Small, though. On the right track; just not the development we're attracted to at the moment.

Villebois, Wilsonville. I've browsed the web site, but never been there. Like the sustainable, green angles. Seems to lack nature trails and has a "snooty" air; but maybe it's just the regrettable French'ie name. 

Fairview Village, Fairview. Quite interesting. Look and feel, based on web site, appeals to us. Proximity to I-84 and Columbia Gorge is worrisome. Windy? Plan to pay a visit one of these days.

Mountain Park, Lake Oswego. Beautiful area. Too country-club'y of a vibe, almost certainly. Strikes me as an old-style high-end planned community. We'd rather have a dog park than a staffed clubhouse.

Murray Hll, Beaverton. By and large, if a planned community web site features a photo of a stone wall with the development's name in big bronze letters, it's not for us. Enough said.

Orenco Station, Hillsboro. lt's won awards. Good place to live if you want to hop on a MAX light rail train and cruise into Portland. Seems overly urban for our taste.

As noted before, I thought there would be more choices. Maybe I've missed some planned communities. Perhaps Google failed me. Somehow I doubt it. Which means, there's a untapped housing market for a creative developer.

Could be wrong (an ever-present possibility). I just know enough baby boomers like us who don't want to grow traditionally old, yet realize that they are... growing old. 

Living in a large difficult-to-maintain single family home is becoming less attractive to them. Yet they're active, energetic and nowhere near ready to enter a dreaded "senior" housing situation. 

So where are the planned communities aimed, in part, at people like us?

We're not going to retire to a golf course community in Arizona. We want hiking, biking, and yes, skateboard/longboard trails much more than bingo and bridge in a social center. 

Build it, and we will buy it. 

Oregonian story downplays global warming science

Yesterday I emailed a reporter for the Portland Oregonian that writing a story about global warming and including a mention about how some are skeptical the planet is getting hotter is akin to ending a story about a fossil discovery with "but some scientists doubt evolution is real."

That would be absurd. Evolution is a scientific truth. So is global warming. There's no doubt among the vast majority of reputable researchers in either field about these facts. 

So it bothered me when the reporter, Scott Learn, tossed in this sentence near the end of a story about how a national assessment shows the Pacific Northwest will be adversely affected by global warming.

Global warming skeptics note that temperatures in the nation and in the Northwest have remained fairly flat since 1998, a hot year, despite increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Well, creationist crazies also doubt that transitional fossils exist, but they do.

Global warming crazies are equally deluded when they seize on some irrelevant aspect of the vast corpus of scientific evidence supporting human-caused climate change and claim this proves their otherwise unprovable point.

In my email I told Learn:

There simply is no place for "balanced" reporting in this area. As a reporter, you aren't reporting the truth if you imply that there is some scientific debate over the reality of global warming. 

l appreciated the reporter's prompt reply, where he acknowledged that my point about the limitations of short-term data is a good one. For sure.

That's why I can't understand why Learn mentioned the 1998-2012 time span at all, especially since this is the new battleline global warming skeptics have retreated to in their fight against the facts -- which keep on winning.

Last month Phil Slait, the Bad Astronomy blogger, wrote a great piece for Slate: "Doubling Down on Climate Change Denial." It starts off with:

Oh, those wacky professional climate change deniers! Once again, they’ve banded together a passel of people, 90 percent of whom aren’t even climatologists, and had them sign a nearly fact-free opinion piece in the Financial Post, claiming global warming isn’t real. It’s an astonishing example of nonsense so ridiculous I would run out of synonyms for “bilge” before adequately describing it.

The Op-Ed is directed to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who has recently, and thankfully, been vocal about the looming environmental catastrophe of global warming. The deniers’ letter takes him to task for this, but doesn’t come within a glancing blow of reality.

The letter itself is based on a single claim. So let’s be clear: If that claim is wrong, so is the rest of the letter.

Guess what? That claim is wrong. So blatantly wrong, in fact, it’s hard to imagine anyone could write it with a straight face. It says:

“The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years.”

This is simply, completely, and utterly false.

Let's absorb that scientific saying again: "simply, completely, and utterly false." Yet that falsehood was repeated in the Oregonian's story about how global warming will affect the Northwest. It shouldn't have been.

Here's how the United Kingdom's official climate researchers responded to the false claim of no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years.

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Now, I realize that newspaper reporters are overworked and underpaid.

But it only takes a few minutes a day to follow the latest science on global warming through Climate Progress and other reputable scientific sources. If I can do that, Scott Learn and other reporters who write about this subject can also do it.

Knowing the difference between responsible scientific difference of opinion and climate change denying bullshit is key for anyone reporting on global warming. It's highly irresponsible to pretend there's a genuine controversy among climatologists about whether the planet is warming because of humans.

There isn't. The Earth is getting hotter. Because of greenhouse gases. End of story.

Yet Learn sent me a link to an earlier piece he'd written in April 2012, "Global warming hiatus in recent years spurs skepticism."

Now, 2012 turned out to be the hottest year in United States history. Even Oregon, which along with Washington missed most of the heat that scorched almost all of the other states, had its 13th hottest year in the last 118 years.

The skeptics quoted by Learn in his stories are simply wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. They shouldn't be given any print space in Oregon's largest newspaper. Or any newspaper, except on the opinon and comics pages. 

Chuck Wiese, for example, is utterly unqualified to opine on global warming. He's a meteorologist with a B.A. degree. He's an accomplice of right-wing radio's Lars Larson, as I wrote about in "Lars Larson's lies about global warming."

I survived ten minutes or so of Larson a few days ago, but just barely. The combined scientific ignorance of Lars and a global warming-denying sidekick he had on, Chuck Wiese, was astounding.

And intensely disturbing.

Three years ago I criticized Larson for joking about how global warming is going to be good for Oregon. He's still up to his head-in-the-sand tricks. Now his brain-dead theory is that the Earth is cooling rapidly, so if big bad government limits our nation's carbon footprint, people are going to freeze to death when their furnace fuel is rationed.

Or something like that.

It was hard to follow the logic of Larson and Wiese, since they didn't use any in their blathering about how climate change/global warming science is a fraud.

I'll close with some opinionating which, unlike Wiese and other global warming skeptics, I'll admit rests only on my own subjective impression.

The Oregonian seems to have changed, both editorially and journalistically. I'm a long-time daily reader of the Oregonian. I used to view the newspaper as a highly credible news source, with a moderately liberal-leaning editorial stance.

Now the opinion pages have gotten much more conservative after the arrival of editor Erik Lukens, whose previous job was with the way-right Bend Bulletin. And I sense a similar change of tone in the news section. Perhaps not to the same degree as in the Oregonian editorials, but noticeable nonetheless.

My "conspiracy theory," which, again, I'll admit as such, is that the Oregonian (like most newspapers) is having a tough time making money in this increasingly digital age. It seems reasonable that Oregonian executives would conclude that expanding readership is necessary. 

Which means looking beyond fact-based liberals/progressives, and feeding right-wingers some unscientific, evidence-free red meat on both the editorial and news pages of the sort that excites Fox News viewers. 

Hey, I could be wrong. I just keep reading stuff in Oregonian stories and opinion pieces that make me think, "Wow, that doesn't make any sense." 

Like, there's a possibility global warming has stopped because of recent temperature data. Huh? Recently the U.K.'s "Guardian" newspaper editorialized, "Now no one can deny the world is getting warmer."

Except for a few crazies, who shouldn't be quoted in the Portland Oregonian. I wish Scott Learn and other reporters would take this excerpt from the Guardian editorial to heart:

From this perspective, it might be tempting to sneer at the US over its response to the challenge of climate change. Britain has little to be smug about, however, a point that was demonstrated last week by media coverage of the Met Office's updated forecast of likely global warming over the next five years.

In revising downwards, albeit slightly, its previous expectation for temperature rises from now until 2017, the Met Office found itself at the midst of a PR shambles. In their dozens, climate change sceptics charged forwards to claim this data showed that global warming has stopped, a completely misleading suggestion that was not properly challenged by journalists.

Amazing photo of Mt. Everest inspires...and despairs

Here's Mt. Everest like you've never seen it before, in 3.8 billion pixels -- an amazingly detailed panoramic photograph of Everest and the surrounding region.

Have a look. 

This composite of 400 + images looks great on my 13 inch retina MacBook Pro. But regardless of how crisp your computer screen is, I bet you'll be as fascinated by the photograph as I was. (I've had some problems, though, getting the green hot spots to zoom correctly after being clicked.)

small portion of actual photograph

When I first came across the photo I spent about 20 minutes exploring the landscape. I'm now hugely more impressed with anyone who climbs Everest. Any slope I looked at seemed super-scary, some more than others.

Cliffs abound. That got me all quasi-philosophical, thinking about the "fiscal cliff" which politicians are tackling in Washington D.C. these days. 

Believe me, there's no cliff like Everest's cliffs.

If we humans can team up cooperatively and figure out how to climb Mt. Everest, we damn well should be able to resolve social policy problems -- metaphorical mountains rather than real ones.

However, David Breashear, who created the photograph, has another project which is more of a downer: tracking the Himalaya's melting glaciers.

The Glacier Research Imaging Project, which I helped found, has retraced the steps of some of the world’s greatest mountain photographers as they took pictures — many of them not previously published or displayed — over the past 110 years across the Himalaya and the Tibetan Plateau. I then returned to those same vantage points and took photographs that bear witness to the rapid warming of the Himalaya and the swift retreat of its glaciers. 

...These then-and-now pictures have a powerful effect on the viewer, one that I hope will bring home the reality — and serious consequences — of global warming. Gazing at Italian photographer Vittorio Sella’s 1899 picture of the Jannu Glacier in Nepal — a huge ice tongue filling a valley — and then comparing it to my 2009 photo, in which the glacier has disappeared, creates a profound sense of unease.

And we should be uneasy. The loss of these frozen reservoirs of water will have a huge impact, as the glaciers provide seasonal flows to nearly every major river system in Asia. From the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra in South Asia, to the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers in China, hundreds of millions of people are partially dependent on this vast arc of high-altitude glaciers for water. 

Facticity is a wonderful word which Breashear's photographs bring to mind. I'm not familiar with the precise philosophical meaning of the word. I just like how it brings attention to the brute fact'ness of physical existence.

We can make up all kinds of crap in our minds: ideologies, theologies, all kinds of abstractions which usually have little connection with "facts on the ground," reality minus our wishful thinking about it.

The Earth is warming.

I don't know if the panoramic Everest photograph shows the melting of ice and snow that Breashear is so concerned about. Probably it does. I was surprised by how rocky and ice-free much of the terrain was. 

Facticity.

Everest can't be climbed without respecting the fact of it. Denial of what is, looking the other way at a more alluring what I hoped it was, leads nowhere good, nowhere productive.

We need more people like Breashear, people committed to revealing the truth about phenomena which aren't understood as well as they should be. Everest. Global warming. Gun violence. Deficit reduction.

Facts matter. There's a way to climb every mountain, both physical ones and metaphorical ones. First, though, we have to know the reality of what we're trying to surmount. 

Global warming likely fueled the "Frankenstorm"

Yeah, global warming deniers, I know what you're going to say. "Any single weather event can't be conclusively tied to climate change."

True.

But we're talking odds here, likelihoods. That's how science works. Nothing is completely certain. Even the best documented law of nature could be falsified, given certain evidence.

Yet when freakishly powerful storms and unusually dry/hot summers and other historically improbable weather events keep coming along, one after the other, way more frequently than has happened in decades or centuries or even thousands of years...

This should make us think: global warming. 

"A $20 billion, 1000-year Frankenstorm? Sandy Slams East Coast, Smashes All-TIme Records"

Coincidentally, as Climate Progress reported last week, Munich Re, a top reinsurer, released a major new study that for the first time, links the rapid rise in North American extreme weather catastrophes to manmade climate change:

“Climate­-driven changes are already evident over the last few decades for severe thunderstorms, for heavy precipitation and flash flood­ing, for hurricane activity, and for heatwave, drought and wild­-fire dynamics in parts of North America.”

"Trenberth: Hurricane Sandy Mixes Super-Storm Conditions With Climate Change"

Global climate change has contributed to the higher sea surface and ocean temperatures, and a warmer and moister atmosphere, and its effects are in the range of 5 to 10%. Natural variability and weather has provided the perhaps optimal conditions of a hurricane running into extra-tropical conditions to make for a huge intense storm, enhanced by global warming influences.

"Did Climate Change Help Create 'Frankenstorm'?"

The storm comes at a unique time politically. In August, the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida was disrupted by strong rain and flooding caused by Hurricane Isaac. Two days later in his acceptance speech, Mitt Romney mocked President Obama’s pledge to deal with climate change and “slow the rise of the oceans” — causing uproarious laughter among delegates. And for the first time since 1988, the presidential candidates did not talk about climate change during debates — even as data shows that the U.S. is experiencing the most extreme weather ever recorded.

“The climate has shifted to a new state capable of delivering rare and unprecedented weather events,” explained meteorologist Jeff Masters earlier this year.

So with the image of horrific storm surge flooding along the East Coast fresh in our minds, let's remember how Mitt Romney mocked the prospect of stopping the rise of the Earth's oceans.

Bill Clinton does it in a memorable minute.

 

Transcript:

I was actually listening closely to what the candidates said in these debates. In the first debate [actually, Romney's convention speech], the triumph of the moderate Mitt Romney. You remember what he did? He ridiculed the president. Ridiculed the president for his efforts to fight global warming in economically beneficial ways. He said, ‘Oh, you’re going to turn back the seas.’ In my part of America, we would like it if someone could’ve done that yesterday. All up and down the East Coast, there are mayors, many of them Republicans, who are being told, ‘You’ve got to move these houses back away from the ocean. You’ve got to lift them up. Climate change is going to raise the water levels on a permanent basis. If you want your town insured, you have to do this.’ In the real world, Barack Obama’s policies work better.

Killing fewer cougars means less livestock losses. Surprising but true.

There goes another cougar management myth, the mistaken notion that the more cougars are killed, the fewer livestock are lost, and fewer encounters between cougars and humans occur. 

A study conducted by Washington State University's Large Carnivore Conservation Lab brought some welcome facts to counter the often-hysterical kill them! cries from fearful ranchers and homeowners (who frequently mistake a large kitty cat for a cougar).

Here's some quotes from a press release about the study.

Overharvest of cougars can increase negative encounters between the predator and humans, livestock and game, according to a 13-year Washington State University research project. Based on this, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is implementing a new cougar management plan.

Starting in January, Washington will employ equilibrium management – hunters will remove no more than the surplus of animals that would be generated through natural reproduction.

This means that each of the state’s game management units will have a limit allowing for harvest of no more than 14 percent of that area’s cougars. Once the limit is filled, cougar hunting will be suspended for the year in that unit. Hunters will be allowed to take their tags to other units that haven’t reached the limit.

...Data showed that adult males, “toms,” are intolerant of adolescent males and will kill them to maintain their territory and breeding rights. Juvenile males can only survive by avoiding adult males. When hunting removes most adult males, the adolescent males survive and cause all sorts of trouble.

While adult cougars tend to avoid humans and livestock, juveniles are less cautious: “They’re teenagers,” explained Wielgus. “They’re sexually mature, but mentally they’re not all there.”

...Without adult male protection of females and their litters, infanticide becomes a problem, as the young toms kill kits to bring the mother into heat and improve their breeding chances. The females try to protect their litters by moving higher in elevation, away from dangerous adolescent males, but also away from plentiful whitetail deer and into terrain occupied by less abundant prey such as mule deer, bighorn sheep and woodland caribou. Thus marginal game populations suffer.

Congratulations to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for changing its cougar management plan after learning about this research.

Oregon needs to do the same. As I've noted for quite a few years, the Oregon cougar plan is based on fictions, not facts.

Killing fewer cougars will mean fewer livestock losses, and less encounters of cougars with humans. That's now a fact, based on WSU's thirteen year study. Time to get rid of the fictions, Oregon Department of FIsh and Wildlife.

Romney doubles down on wrecking the environment

Mitt Romney had an opportunity to reverse course on a crazy policy position: let the Earth get sicker and allow the oceans to keep rising (from global warming). 

But yesterday he repeated his mocking of Obama's goal to do the opposite: heal the planet and slow the oceans' rise.

Environmental activists condemned Romney's remarks on "Meet the Press." Climate scientist Michael Mann, author of "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars," wrote in an e-mail to The Huffington Post, "It is disconcerting that a major party presidential candidate would show such wanton disregard for the health of our environment. Mr. Romney says he wants to 'help the American people.' Yet he mocks concern over human-caused climate change, arguably the greatest threat humanity has ever faced."

Daniel Kessler, spokesperson for climate campaign 350.org, said it was ironic that Romney wants to help Americans, but not the planet Americans inhabit.

"Mr. Romney can crack all the jokes that he wants to, but his cynicism won't solve the problem," Kessler wrote to HuffPost. "Half of the country is in drought, and NASA says it's linked to climate change. If Mr. Romney finds that funny, then I think it's appropriate for people to question his leadership and commitment to truly helping the American people."

Further, Romney hasn't been telling the whole story about what Obama said. Here's the truth, something Romney and Ryan have a lot of problems with.

And for the record, what Obama actually said back in 2008 was:

If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal….

Obama wasn’t making some narrow eco-pledge. He was saying he was in the race to help the American people in the short term and the long term. You can accuse Obama of  failing to fight hard enough for the climate goal — and I often do — but not for making the pledge in the first place. Romney’s remark should be enshrined in the anti-science hall of shame.

For sure.