Salem Political Snark

Make Oregon Republicans pay for their anti-democracy walkout

Four days ago I titled a blog post, "It's a make-or-break week for democracy in Oregon." Well, today we learned that Democrats in the state legislature stood firm in defense of democracy, while the Republicans who walked out basically said screw you, democracy.

 
Oregonians need to remember this in the upcoming November election. Democrats care about democracy. Republicans don't. It's that simple. Vote accordingly on the local, state, and national level. 

The only bright spot in the legislature being forced to close up shop because of the Republican walkout, which was a taxpayer-funded vacation for them, was how Democratic leaders acted this time.

While in 2019 they killed some bills to get the Republicans to do the job they were elected to do -- act as legislators -- this time they refused to make any deals. Good for them. The only deal House and Senate Republicans deserve is to have as many of them as possible voted out of office.

Here's some information about the walkout aftermath that I gleaned from my Twitter feed. The Salem Reporter also has a good story about this, as does the Oregonian. As you can read below, Governor Kate Brown has vowed to make reductions in carbon emissions via executive order, a pleasing move.

It's a make-or-break week for democracy in Oregon

With the coronavirus consuming so much attention, we shouldn't lose sight of another major threat to Oregon's wellbeing: the fifth walkout of Republican state legislators in just two years.

Photo I took at a protest against a 2019 GOP walkout

Why? Because the GOP hasn't been able to win elections in this state. 

Normally the party that lacks control of a political body, like the Oregon House and Senate, sucks it up and accepts that elections have consequences. Which is nicely summed up in two images included in a February 29 Vox story, "Oregon Republicans are subverting democracy by running away. Again."

You know, it really doesn't matter why Republicans have walked out those five times, preventing the legislature from doing its business because the Oregon constitution has a crazy requirement that 2/3 of the members of the House or Senate have to be present for a quorum.

(Most state legislatures require a mere majority.)

So those Republicans are getting a paid vacation in Idaho, or wherever they're hiding out. They don't want a cap-and-trade climate bill to pass in the 2020 session, just as they didn't want a similar bill to pass in the 2019 session. Since they succeeded last year, it isn't surprising that they're using the same walkout tactic again this year.

It's a terrible blow to democracy. 

Oregon Democrats had a successful election in 2018. They campaigned on passing a bill to reduce our state's carbon pollution, and voters chose to give Democrats a very healthy majority in both the House and Senate. Yet rather than try harder to win elections, Oregon Republicans have taken the crybaby approach and walked out.

Having written those words, I just had a mild case of PTSD. When she was young, my daughter and I would play Monopoly. I painfully remember how, a number of times, I'd have her on the edge of bankruptcy when she'd tip the board over, sending pieces flying, and yell "It's a tie! Nobody won!"

OK, that's sort of acceptable when you're 12 years old. But grown men and women shouldn't make a habit of doing what amounts to the same thing by tipping over the ability of the Oregon legislature to function by going on a taxpayer-paid walkout.

The Vox story does an excellent job of explaining why this is such a horrible precedent. I did the same thing last year in "Oregon democracy threatened by Senate GOP walkout."

Below are some excerpts from the Vox piece. If the walkout extends past the end of this year's short legislative session, I hope that Governor Brown will keep calling a special session every single day until the Republicans return to do their job, or the November election happens and voters hopefully punish the Oregon GOP by electing more Democrats.

In Oregon right now, a handful of white people from the far right are holding the state government hostage.

No, it’s not another armed occupation of government buildings, like in 2016. This time it’s a handful of Oregon lawmakers who refuse to enter government buildings, thereby holding the business of the legislature hostage.

It ought to be getting more national attention, if for no other reason than it perfectly encapsulates larger national political trends. It is like a snow globe, a perfect miniature representation of what the Republican Party is becoming.

In a nutshell, Oregon Republicans are exploiting an arcane constitutional provision in order to exert veto power over legislation developed by the Democratic majority, on behalf of an almost entirely white, rural minority. Five times in the past 10 months, they have simply refused to show up for work, preventing the legislature from passing bills on guns, forestry, health care, and budgeting. The fifth walkout, over a climate change bill, is ongoing.

It is an extraordinary escalation of anti-democratic behavior from the right, gone almost completely unnoticed by the national political media. Nevertheless, it is a big deal, worth pausing to consider, not only because it is preventing Oregon from addressing climate change, but because it shows in stark terms where the national GOP is headed.

...The second main GOP talking point is that, instead of simply voting the bill through the normal way legislatures do, Democrats should send it to voters as a direct ballot referendum.

It’s clear enough why this would serve Republican purposes. It would kick the can down the road and give them months to access billions of dollars of oil money to crush the referendum, just as oil billions crushed ballot initiatives in Washington and Colorado in 2018.

What I don’t understand is why this proposal is being taken seriously, by anyone, for even a second. It is facially absurd. The rules of the democratic process are written down in black and white. Democrats played by them. They campaigned — on cap-and-trade, among other things — and got a large majority of votes. So they are developing a bill and now they’re going to pass it. That’s how democracy works.

Republicans don’t just get to arbitrarily decide, as a defeated minority, how the majority’s bills pass, or what form they take. Their enormous sense of entitlement notwithstanding, they don’t get to rewrite the rules of democracy on the fly as it suits them, from bill to bill.

Marion County garbage burner propaganda disputed by Clean Air Now Coalition

Most of us don't pay much attention to where our garbage goes after it is picked up.

But if you live in Marion County (Oregon), you should. Because the end point of our trash gets burned up by an incinerator owned and operated by Covanta, a multi-billion dollar company that's trying to get the Oregon legislature to give it renewable energy tax credits.

Yes, for burning garbage. Who knew that garbage was a renewable resource? (It isn't -- that's why hardly anybody but Covanta favors bestowing taxpayer money on the incinerator in Brooks, north of Salem.)

On February 21, a week ago today, the Salem City Club made a big mistake. Instead of allowing both proponents and opponents of the garbage burner to have their say, the City Club decided to only let Marion County representatives speak -- both of whom spouted Covanta propaganda shamelessly since the county contracts with Covanta.

I wrote about this travesty in "Marion County officials are clueless about profit margin of garbage incinerator." This was only one of many WTF? moments at the City Club program.

Fortunately, the Clean Air Now Coalition put together a well-written, factual, nicely documented rebuttal of the Covanta/Marion County propaganda that I painfully had to listen to for over an hour, being a Salem City Club member who usually enjoys the programs, this one being a notable exception.

Below is what the Clear Air Now Coalition said.

I've added some paragraph breaks to make the rebuttal easier to read, and inserted links to several PDF files included with the coalition's report. It's must-reading for anyone who cares about reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Marion County, and protecting people from the harmful chemicals emitted by the garbage burner.

There are members of the Clean Air Now Coalition who want to take exception to much of the presentation made by Marion County staff to the Salem City Club on February 21, 2020. The presenters may simply be otherwise well-meaning targets of Covanta propaganda, but that resulted in elements of distraction and misdirection that seemed similar to what one might observe in a magic act.

In one example of misdirection (“Hey, look over there!”) the audience was basically given two waste management paths from which to choose: 

1) the waste incinerator, which was presented as having a few tolerable flaws, versus 

2) landfills that produce methane, take up farmland, and potentially pollute ground water.

The sustainable option of waste prevention and waste reduction was presented as a supplement to incineration and landfilling rather than a completely separate option from either the incinerator or methane-producing landfills. 

This sustainable option should be seen as a separate option all on its own and be pursued diligently until Marion County over a period of years reaches at least a 90% diversion of its waste stream through waste prevention, reuse, repair, recycling, and composting. What remains can be landfilled (in less space than that currently used each year by incinerator ash) with the methane-producing organic matter diverted to composting. 

Also, the incineration of waste at the Covanta Marion incinerator is the antithesis of waste reduction because Marion County's contract with Covanta requires that the County provide enough waste to fully fuel the incinerator. 

If that obligation is not met, the County is penalized. Thus, at such time that a waste reduction program became successful enough to reduce the waste stream below that required incinerator fuel level, the County would begin being penalized for further waste reduction.

We want to point out that toxic emissions from the incinerator are NOT monitored continuously, as Mr. Nicholas incorrectly said initially. 

Toxic heavy metals, extremely toxic dioxins, and hydrogen chloride are only measured annually with samples taken during three pre-announced runs during a testing period of a few days by a contractor of Covanta’s choosing. Numerous other toxins known to be emitted by solid waste incinerators are not measured at all.

During the question and answer period of the City Club program the presenters partially corrected themselves but implied that the few gases that are monitored continuously (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide) serve as “indicators“ for all of the other things that are not monitored continuously. We strongly take issue with that contention.

If somehow a large batch of lead or cadmium entered the waste stream, for example, they would certainly increase the emissions of those toxins; but the magnitude of that increase would not be detectable by monitoring the few gases that are part of the continuous emissions monitoring system. Only by continuous monitoring of the toxins themselves  (as is done in many European incinerators) would a reasonably accurate measure be taken.

In addition to the problem of infrequent testing for toxins, there is also a flaw in the timing of testing for toxins such as dioxin.  The incinerator’s air quality permit specifies that measurements may only be taken during optimal operating conditions. It has been demonstrated in a European study that the production of dioxins can increase 30 to 50 times during malfunctions, startup, and shutdown as compared to their production during optimal operating conditions.

The presenters pointed out how the Covanta Marion incinerator overwhelmingly meets the emissions limits set by the current air quality permit. However, the following things that they did not point out are very important: This incinerator burns over 11,000 tons of medical waste per year (with about 10,000 tons of that coming from out of state). That is over five times the amount of medical waste that a large medical waste incinerator would have to burn in order to qualify for a much stricter set of emissions limits. 

The Covanta Marion incinerator’s emissions of acid gases and heavy metals exceeded these stricter emission limits consistently and extensively during the past seven years for which we have data. In spite of the fact that they conceivably burn more medical waste then some actual large medical waste incinerators, they are held to much more lax emission standards than large medical waste incinerators just because they are called a “municipal solid waste incinerator."

This inconsistency created by EPA (with possible corporate and political influence in our opinion) does not make logical sense at all. The toxins the Covanta Marion incinerator emits are no less harmful than if they had been emitted from an incinerator officially called a “large medical waste incinerator." A table showing these emission comparisons, with figures provided by the Oregon DEQ, is attached.

Download GA - Covanta current limits and actual emissions with explanations 2-13-20

Another example of distraction during the presentation was the statement that the greenhouse gas emitted by the incinerator represents only a small fraction of the greenhouse gas from other sources, such as transportation and production of electricity.

We would compare that to the “murderer versus mass murderer“ defense argument.  In this scenario the murderer says, “You should set me free because I only murdered one person in cold blood, whereas that person over there murdered 50 people.”  It is estimated that this incinerator produces greenhouse gas each year equivalent to the annual production of greenhouse gas by about 34,000 automobiles.

It is also ironic that the presenters would include the production of electricity in their comparison of the relative amounts of greenhouse gases coming from various sources. It is estimated that electricity created by waste incineration produces approximately 2.5 times as much greenhouse gas per unit of electricity as a coal fired power plant.  See this link:  http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration/climate

The presenters showed a graph that they stated multiple times was produced by the incinerator industry and not by them. It purported to show that waste incineration is a net reducer of greenhouse gases because it helps “avoid“ other sources of greenhouse gas, such as fossil fuel electricity generation and smelting of metal ores. 

That claim regarding the 19th greatest industrial producer of greenhouse gas in Oregon per a report from the Oregon DEQ is not only ludicrous on the face of it (which is probably why the presenters took pains to ensure we understood it was not their graph); it does not stand up to critical analysis. Please see the same link as presented in the preceding paragraph to read more about that analysis.

The presenters also presented graphics that seemed to show that the incinerator is not known to cause harm to environmental justice populations (minorities, disadvantaged, etc.). Yet in our own analysis for the area which incinerator emissions could be expected to reach, we found that “according to the US EPA, the neighborhoods within a 7-mile radius around the Covanta waste incineration facility are in the 88th percentile for cancer and respiratory risks (using National Air Toxics Assessment data). 

Furthermore the US EPA lists the area’s demographics indicators for minority (86th percentile), low-income (70th percentile) and linguistically isolated populations (88th percentile) for an overall Demographic Index in the 83rd percentile compared to other areas in Oregon. The bottom line is that environmental justice populations are at risk from the incinerator's emissions.

We have also attached to this message a waste reduction sample plan for Marion County and a copy of the "Healthy and Sustainable Waste Management" handout that was available on the registration table at the February 21 City Club program.

Download Waste reduction plan - sample 11-17-18
Download Healthy and Sustainable Waste Management (revised) 2-16-20

There are no doubt other points to be made about the February 21 presentation, but we will stop here and allow you to reach your own conclusions. 

Clean Air Now Coalition
http://cleanair-now.org/  

Covanta Marion garbage incinerator

Marion County officials are clueless about profit margin of garbage incinerator

Today's Salem City Club program on the controversial Covanta garbage incinerator that handles Marion County trash was as disappointing as I and others expected it to be.

Back in January I criticized the City Club for making the program totally biased in a blog post called "Salem City Club sparks outrage with one-sided garbage burner program." 

Last week I was included in email exchanges between environmentalists from the local chapter of 350.org and City Club members in charge of the garbage burner program. My sympathies then, as now, are with the environmentalists.

For after failing to have the Oregon legislature approve a bill in 2019 that would grant Renewable Energy Credits to Covanta, there's another effort underway in the upcoming 2020 short legislative session to pass a similar bill.

...So Marion County, which handles the Covanta contract and is overseen by an all-Republican Board of Commissioners who, so far as I know, are all global warming deniers (Sam Brentano definitely is), gets to use the February 21 City Club program to present a one-sided view of how wonderful the Covanta garbage burner is, and why renewable energy credits should be bestowed on the Covanta corporation.

This makes no sense to me, especially since February 21 is right in the middle of the February 3 - March 7 legislative session.

By not allowing an environmentalist like Andy Harris to be able to refute the claims of the Marion County representatives who will have the podium all to themselves, the Salem City Club has chosen to align itself with one-side of the Covanta garbage burner debate -- which happens to be the side that has the least scientific credibility, in my view.

Indeed, today's program turned out even worse than I thought it would be. I'd hoped that Cindy Condon, the City Club member who planned the program, would allow plenty of time for questions during the hour (12 pm to 1 pm) presentations normally last.

But two Marion County employees used up the entire hour, and then some, with what essentially was a infomercial for the Covanta garbage burner. Covanta, a giant corporation, is trying to get the Oregon legislature to bestow renewable energy tax credits on the burner, even though it seems clear that garbage isn't a renewable resource.

A few minutes after 1 pm, when people were starting to leave, a question and answer period started. I got to ask what I thought was an excellent probing question, given that Covanta has said that it may have to shut down the garbage burner if it doesn't get the tax credits.

Here's what I asked the Marion County officials:

A recent Statesman Journal story says that Covanta didn't respond to a state legislator's request for information about how much money the company is making from the incinerator. Do you know what Covanta's annual profit is on the Marion County garbage incinerator?

After some bureaucratic blather, the answer I got was: NO.

I was surprised that not only won't Covanta tell state legislators how much money they're making on the garbage burner that it owns, and which Marion County pays them to run, but either Covanta won't give Marion County officials this information either, or those officials don't want to find out the profit margin because it won't support their goal of getting the renewable energy tax credits.

Since Covanta had revenues of almost $2 billion in 2019, it's difficult to feel any sympathy for the company, especially since they're being so secretive about how much money they're making from the Marion County incinerator.

Check out an excellent Statesman Journal story by Tracy Loew about the garbage burner, "Marion County wants renewable energy status for burning trash as power revenue falls." That idea is opposed by many environmental groups in Oregon.

Many of Oregon's largest environmental groups have lined up in opposition to HB 4049, saying it defeats the purpose of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which is to create new investments in clean energy. 

Opponents include the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, Oregon Citizens' Utility Board, Oregon Environmental Council, Northwest Energy Coalition, Renewable Northwest, Oregon Chapter Sierra Club, Climate Solutions, Environment Oregon, Verde, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Beyond Toxics, 350 Salem, Clean Air Now Coalition, Zero Waste Oregon, Oregon Community Rights Network, and Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association. 

"Renewable energy credits are meant to support new renewable energy projects, not an old, polluting facility from 1987," said Damon Motz-Storey, of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.

"Every dollar that would be spent giving a corporate handout to Covanta, a multinational company, would be a dollar not spent on clean technology, such as wind and solar energy projects that promote green, living-wage jobs and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels," Motz-Storey said.

Also, there was an excellent anti-garbage burner handout at the City Club registration desk prepared by the Clean Air Now Coalition. Have a read. I just wish opponents of the polluting garbage burner had been given an opportunity to present their side at the City Club meeting, which would have made for a much more accurate and informative program.

 

Some rural Oregonians want to join Idaho. Good luck with that.

There's a movement to have the most rural Oregon counties join with Idaho so those living outside of the Willamette Valley don't have to put up with annoying democratic niceties such as elections have consequences. 

Here's what Greater Idaho would look like if that fantasy were to somehow become reality, against great odds, courtesy of a map in the Oregonian story.

This is how a USA Today story, "Secession in the Pacific Northwest? Some Oregon residents petition to join Idaho," starts out.

Frustrated by liberal policies, some Oregon residents are petitioning to leave the state –by moving the border with Idaho westward. 

The movement has secured initial approval from two counties and aims to get enough signatures to put the proposal on local ballots in November, said the group Move Oregon's Border for a Greater Idaho.

If the group succeeds, voters in southeast Oregon may see a question on whether their county should become part of Idaho by redrawing the border.

“Rural counties have become increasingly outraged by laws coming out of the Oregon Legislature that threaten our livelihoods, our industries, our wallet, our gun rights, and our values,” Mike McCarter, one of the chief petitioners, said in a press release. “We tried voting those legislators out but rural Oregon is outnumbered and our voices are now ignored. This is our last resort.”

Oh, boo-hoo. Those of us who didn't vote for Trump are equally outraged at the horrible policies emanating from the White House and Republican-controlled Senate. 

But we aren't petitioning to join Canada, though I have to admit that this idea has crossed the mind of quite a few Democrats.

Instead, what we're working hard to do is win the 2020 presidential election.

Likewise, Oregon Republicans could put more effort into taking control of the Governor's office and state legislature, something that has more chance of succeeding than the notion of rural counties joining Idaho, which I suspect is more of a public relations stunt than a serious endeavor.

(The secession group does have a Facebook page, though, with a whole 824 "likes" at the moment.)

Here's the hurdle that needs to be met by those dreaming of a Greater Idaho.

Even if Oregon’s eastern counties do vote to join Idaho, approval would then be needed from the Oregon and Idaho legislatures -- and the U.S. Congress.

So Job #1 for the secessionists should be winning Republican majorities in the state House and Senate. Good luck with that, sad-faced conservatives. Looks like you're stuck sharing Oregon with us progressives. Of course, there's another option open to you: move to Idaho.

Anxiety among progressives is real. Here's how I'm coping.

Don't get me wrong. It's always a good time to be a progressive leftie. But at the moment I'm not feeling much pleasurable buzz from being on the right, or better put, wisest, way of looking at the political world.

Let's count some of the reasons.

(1) Trump is emboldened following his impeachment acquittal. He's shown no sign of repentance for trying to get Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. Aside from Senator Romney, congressional Republicans are kissing Trump's ass with disgusting relish.

(2) The Iowa caucuses were a disaster. The messed-up tally of results makes Democrats look incompetent.

(3) And the two candidates who came out on top in Iowa are Sanders, an avowed socialist, and Buttigieg, who basically has zero black support. I much prefer Buttigieg to Biden in the moderate camp, but I worry about the ability of either Sanders or Buttigieg to either beat Trump in November or bring the Democratic Party together -- a necessity for beating Trump.

(4) Trump's approval rating has shot up recently. Hopefully this is an aberration. However, his base of support certainly hasn't eroded, and it may be enlarging.

(5) Here in Oregon, the lumber trucks have arrived in Salem to once again protest the current version of the cap-and-trade bill to reduce carbon pollution so our planet remains fit for human habitation. Republicans likely will walkout like they did last session if it appears the bill has any chance of passing, dooming it for lack of a quorum.

So us progressives are in an awkward period.

Neither the candidate who can beat Trump, or the path to do so, is at all clear. Meanwhile Trump supporters and Republicans are rejoicing in Trump's State of the Union speech and the nasty in-your-face divisive remarks he made at, of all things, a Prayer Breakfast. 

Plus, Oregon Democrats seem poised to repeat the depressing spectacle of the 2019 legislative session: allow Republicans to stage a walkout without any negative consequences, after which the cap-and-trade bill will be shelved until 2021 as the Earth continues to warm dangerously.

Everybody has their own way of coping with anxiety. I don't claim that my approach to dealing with the worries I've just enumerated are any sort of universal worry-salve. These are simply some of the things I try to keep in mind when progressive nightmares haunt me.

Everything changes. No one can know what will happen in the next 24 hours, much less between now and election day in November, or now and the ending of the short Oregon legislative session in early March. Surprises are going to be plentiful. They're as likely to be progressive-friendly as the reverse. So let's enjoy surfing the wave of political change and hope we progressives don't wipe out.

Negativity is a human predilection. Most people, me included for sure, find it easier to visualize bad things happening than good things. In early human history worriers who feared that the rustle in the brush was a saber-toothed tiger fared better in the evolutionary sweepstakes than the optimists who thought it was just the wind. Thus it's psychologically likely that many or most of my political anxieties aren't going to come to pass, or will be less extreme than I expect.

Life is much grander than the latest headlines. I'm a news junkie. But often I stick the most recent issue of TIME or The New Yorker in a drawer and don't get around to reading it for weeks, or even months sometimes. Then I skip much of the issue, because what was so important then, isn't now. Other things are. And rarely do either the old things or the new things impact my daily life, which exists on a different level than national, state, or local politics.

Close to home, progress is always possible. While progressive anxieties tend to skew nationally, obviously the best ability to produce positive progressive outcomes is at the local level, right here in Salem. Yesterday I got to hear Virginia Stapleton speak about why she's running to replace retiring Ward 1 city councilor Cara Kaser. Stapleton was so sincere, eloquent, inspiring, and persuasive, listening to her raised my progressive spirits. A lot.

Virginia Stapleton

The way Democratic primaries work, Oregon is going to have little say in who the Dem presidential nominee is going to be once our May election rolls around. All we'll be able to do is passively watch other states vote (or, in the case of Iowa, screw up voting). 

But when I contributed some money to the campaigns of three progressive Salem City Council candidates about a week ago, I felt really good about playing a small role in what hopefully will be the victories of Virginia Stapleton, Vanessa Nordyke, and Trevor Phillips. 

Doing something concrete to aid local progressive causes wasn't exactly a cure for my above-mentioned anxieties about national and state politics. However, it definitely alleviated some of the symptoms. Here's links to the web sites of Stapleton, Nordyke, and Phillips if you feel like doing some healing yourself.

https://electvirginiastapleton.com
https://electvanessanordyke.com
https://electtrevorphillips.com

Youth fighting for climate change action should inspire Oregon politicians

My 12-year-old granddaughter, Evelyn, did the right thing in sending me an "OK Boomer" hoodie for Christmas.

While at first I took it as a putdown of my baby boomer generation, upon further reflection I see it as a totally justified putdown of my generation.

About the same time as the arrival of the hoodie, TIME magazine's Person of the Year issue arrived. It featured Greta Thunberg on the cover, with the words "The Power of Youth."

Since, that issue has been sitting in my pile of Things to Blog About One Day. That day has come, in part because next Monday, February 3, the Oregon legislature convenes in a short even-numbered year session.

A revised cap-and-trade bill that would reduce greenhouse gas pollution in the state will be introduced and, hopefully, passed. Republicans are threatening a walkout to deny the quorum that is needed for the legislature to function, but this would be unpopular with voters who like to see elected officials perform the job they're supposed to do.

The following excerpts from the TIME cover story about Thunberg probably wouldn't change the minds of climate change deniers. However, I was moved by them. My generation truly has let young people down when it comes to protecting our one and only planet for human habitation.

Pass the cap-and-trade bill, Oregon legislators. Listen to what the youth of the world are saying...

The common thread is outrage over a central injustice: young people know they are inheriting a world that will not work nearly as well as it did for the aging adults who have been running it.

"It's so important to realize that we are challenging the systems we are in, and that is being led by young people," says Beth Irving, 17, who came from Wales to demonstrate for sweeping changes outside the U.N. summit.

Thunberg is not aligned with any of these non-climate youth movements, but her abrupt rise to prominence comes at a moment when young people across the globe are awakening to anger at being cut a raw deal.

The existential issue of climate puts everyone at risk, but the younger you are, the greater the stakes. 

The scale of addressing climate change -- the systematic transformation of economic, social, and political systems -- animates young progressives already keen to remake the world.

Karin Watson, 22, who came to the climate summit as part of a delegation from Amnesty International Chile, describes a tumultuous, interconnected and youth-led "social explosion" worldwide.

She cannot disentangle her own advocacy for higher wages from women's rights and climate: "This social crisis is also an ecological crisis -- it's related," she says. "In the end, it's intersectional: the most vulnerable communities are the most vulnerable to climate change."

In the U.S., Jaclyn Corin, 19, one of the original organizers of the March for Our Lives anti-gun violence movement, framed the challenges at stake.

"We can't let these problems continue on for future generations to take care of," she says. "Adults didn't take care of these problems, so we have to take care of them, and not be like older generations in their complacency."

Me, Brian Hines, a member of an older generation, trying not to look too complacent

Oregonians will punish GOP legislators if they walk out again

I'm already irked again at Republicans in the state legislature, because they're indicating that another walkout could happen in the upcoming short legislative session over a bill to reduce carbon pollution in Oregon and stem global warming.

The leader of the Senate Republicans has said a walkout is possible, as has the leader of the House Republicans. 

The GOP leader in the Oregon Senate says there could be another walkout by Republicans over legislation aimed at stemming global warming.

Senate Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger, Jr., told reporters Wednesday that a bill being prepared by Democrats in the Legislature, which they control, is similar to one that was introduced in 2019.

...Senate Republicans left the state in the 2019 legislative session in order to prevent a vote on the controversial climate change proposal. A measure to curb carbon emissions is once again at the top of Democrats’ priority list, and Republicans have signaled that another walk out is not off the table.

Newly elected House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, said a walkout is a “breakdown of the process,” but she didn’t rule it out as an option to block the climate change bill.

Republican legislators need to carry out the job they were elected to do: legislate.

That means voting on bills that come before the legislature. If Republicans want to defeat bills they don't like, and pass bills they do like, they should work harder to win elections, not throw a temper-tantrum and walk out when they fail to get their way.

Fortunately, most Oregonians feel like I do, according to a Willamette Week story, "Poll Results Suggest Oregonians Favor Political Consequences for Republican Walkout Tactics."

A new poll, paid for by a group of the state's public-sector unions, suggests voters are supportive of political consequences for senators who stage a walkout, like the one that blocked last year's carbon-cap bill.

"Fully 63% of these voters say they are less likely to vote for an incumbent senator who participated in the walkouts—and more than two in five (42%) say they are 'much less likely' to do so," according to a memo provided to WW on the poll by FM3, which sampled 750 likely November voters.

...The polling suggests a further walkout might cause trouble for Republicans in swing districts—and provide an incentive not to opt for the tactic this session.

Joe Baessler, associate director of AFSCME Council 75, says the poll, paid for by the public-employee union-backed group Our Oregon, showed similar results in those two Senate districts—those held by state Sens. Tim Knopp (R-Bend) and Denyc Boles (R-Salem)—where Democrats are looking to upset Republican incumbents.

OK, that's great news. As is reporting by OPB that union leaders plan to file an initiative that could result in legislators being kicked out of office if they have too many unexcused absences. 

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Democratic legislative leaders have played down the idea of trying to amend the Constitution to prevent future walkouts of the kind staged by Republicans during last year’s legislative session. 

But a top labor leader says public employee unions are planning to file a proposed ballot initiative that would threaten legislators who walk out with being tossed from office.

Joe Baessler, political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said polling conducted by the unions show that “voters really seem to like the idea that if you don’t show up to work, you lose your job.”

The proposed constitutional amendment, Baessler said, would oust legislators who have at least 10 unexcused absences in a year.

Excellent idea. 

I was deeply disappointed last year when Democrats let the Republicans who walked out, not once but twice, get away with zero negative consequences. No state troopers sent to bring them back. No fines. No nothing. 

If a child misbehaves and their parents don't do anything, that makes it more likely that the child will do the same thing again. Ditto for a dog that misbehaves.

So it's entirely predictable that Republicans are talking about another walkout next month, since in 2019 they were rewarded with killing the climate change bill, plus bills dealing with gun control and mandatory vaccinations that the clueless Democrats killed as an incentive to get the Republicans to stop their first walkout.

Hopefully the poll results and the proposed ballot initiative will show Republicans in the state legislature that voters are tired of their walk-out antics, and some serious consequences will befall the GOP if they stage another paid vacation to Idaho while the legislature is in session.

It sure would be nice not to see another Wanted Poster for Republicans failing to do their jobs.

 

Salem City Club sparks outrage with one-sided garbage burner program

It hurts when an organization you like screws up, then offers up a weak explanation for why the screw-up happened.

That's why I'm so disappointed with the Salem City Club, which has decided to only have Marion County representatives speak at a February 21 program about the Covanta garbage burner in Brooks -- a decision that has outraged environmentalists who urged the City Club to also have someone speak about the downsides of the garbage burner.

Which are many, as this excerpt from an Oregon League of Conservation Voters post says.

When you think of clean energy, what do you think of? If you’re like most people, you think of wind turbines on a gusty hill, or solar panels on a sunny rooftop. If you’re like Covanta — one of the biggest waste-incineration plants in Oregon — you think of burning trash.

But waste incineration is by no means clean energy. Burning trash contributes heavily to air pollution, and to climate change. In fact, on many levels, it’s far worse than fossil fuels. Covanta’s waste incineration plant adds nitrogen oxides, dioxins, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and heavy metals into the air, putting nearby communities at risk of severe asthma attacks, birth defects, strokes, and respiratory problems. That’s anything but clean.

Last week I was included in email exchanges between environmentalists from the local chapter of 350.org and City Club members in charge of the garbage burner program. My sympathies then, as now, are with the environmentalists.

For after failing to have the Oregon legislature approve a bill in 2019 that would grant Renewable Energy Credits to Covanta, there's another effort underway in the upcoming 2020 short legislative session to pass a similar bill.

Here's a message that Andy Harris sent to state Representative Brian Clem on this subject.

January 11, 2020

Dear Brian [Rep. Clem],

 

I have known you for many years through Salem City Club and have valued and supported your positions on most legislative issues, in particular on climate and health. However, in my opinion your support of renewable energy credits for Covanta Marion is an unfortunate mistake. I would encourage you to stand up to political pressures from Marion Co. Commissioners, Senate President Courtney, and industry apologists.

 

Much has changed since Covanta Marion was first approved and constructed in the mid-80s. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) have become more of a known threat to the heating of our planet. We now know that the incinerator, which burns plastics, medical waste and municipal trash, is the state’s 19th largest industrial producer of GHGs. We also know that when waste is burned, nearly all of the carbon is immediately emitted into the atmosphere as a Greenhouse Gas (GHG).  

 

Incinerators accelerate the release of GHGs and speed up the process of global heating, whereas landfills slow the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. At a modern landfill, such as Coffin Butte, about three quarters (74% - 81%) of the GHGs remain sequestered indefinitely, especially the carbon sequestered in plastics. Landfill technology has further improved so that about half of the methane released at Coffin Butte is captured and used as an energy source.  

 

The term renewable energy credits [RECs] refers to naturally renewing resources.  RECs are intended to encourage the development of clean, new sources of energy, like solar and wind power, not for energy from burning dirty garbage and medical waste.

 

Covanta Marion not only releases GHGs into the atmosphere, it spews heavy metals and toxic chemicals into the air we breathe. The toxic emissions that go out the stack are dispersed over the countryside, waterways, towns and schools, where they can harm human health and wildlife. The heavy metals include lead and cadmium from the burning of paper and cardboard.

 

Ingestion of these compounds by children causes learning disabilities, lowered IQ, hyperactivity and attention deficit.  Other heavy metals emitted by Covanta Marion include zinc, mercury, copper, and nickel. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has named the incinerator one of its top priorities for reducing toxic air pollution.

 

Moreover, incineration of solid waste at Covanta incinerator creates new compounds like dioxins, the active ingredients in Agent Orange and the most toxic chemicals on the planet, other than radioactive isotopes. Dioxins are formed when organic material (like wood and paper) are heated and cooled in the presence of chloride products (like PVCs from medical waste plastics).

 

Dioxins also are created and released by the burning of wood products treated with creosote and other chemical preservatives, and by the burning of materials impregnated with flame retardants. Dioxins are carcinogenic, cause birth defects, are powerful endocrine disrupters, suppress the immune system, and decrease fertility.

 

Incineration does not make solid waste magically disappear. One quarter of all the trash burned remains as residual bottom ash and fly ash, a toxic brew of heavy metals and chemicals that must then be trucked [to] a landfill, an additional trip that emits more diesel exhaust into our communities.

 

Covanta Marion incinerator would have us believe that they need renewable energy credits to remain in business, despite the fact that they have been profitable since 1987 without RECs. The intent of any legislation should be to award RECs to encourage new, innovative, clean energy sources, rather than to subsidize the burning of toxic municipal and medical waste. After 33 years of operation, it is time to close down this old, polluting incinerator for the health of our planet and the health of our people. 

 

Thank you for your careful consideration. 

 

Sincerely yours,

Andy Harris, MD

Board of Directors

Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

 

So Marion County, which handles the Covanta contract and is overseen by an all-Republican Board of Commissioners who, so far as I know, are all global warming deniers (Sam Brentano definitely is), gets to use the February 21 City Club program to present a one-sided view of how wonderful the Covanta garbage burner is, and why renewable energy credits should be bestowed on the Covanta corporation.

This makes no sense to me, especially since February 21 is right in the middle of the February 3 - March 7 legislative session.

By not allowing an environmentalist like Andy Harris to be able to refute the claims of the Marion County representatives who will have the podium all to themselves, the Salem City Club has chosen to align itself with one-side of the Covanta garbage burner debate -- which happens to be the side that has the least scientific credibility, in my view.

Yet here's a screenshot of the February 21 City Club program description:

Wow. There's so much wrong with this. "Differing scientific opinion" is how global warming deniers rationalize their refusal to acknowledge the scientific consensus around climate change. 

I don't believe there is a valid scientific case to be made in favor of allowing the Covanta garbage burner to continue spewing pollutants.

Yet the City Club is only allowing Marion County representatives to speak on February 21, where, according to the program, the representatives will explain why continued support of the garbage burner is justified, along with Covanta's effort to get renewable energy credits.

Why isn't the City Club presenting both sides of what it calls "differing scientific opinion"? As a long-time City Club member, this bothers me. A lot. 

Tonight I did get a message from someone who was tasked with trying to explain to us skeptics why the City Club is handling the garbage burner program the way it is. Below is the message, which I don't find very persuasive.

I deeply doubt that the Marion County representatives are going to present the scientific case against the Covanta garbage burner, or will limit their talk to being an "information session only."

Thus I think the Salem City Club is making a big mistake by not allowing both sides to speak on February 21, and will end up regretting having chosen to give Marion County free rein to praise the highly polluting garbage burner. The City Club person said:

We have thought of this impending program long and hard, and have conceived of it from the start as hearing Marion County's position on this controversial issue.

 

We understand that there are very strongly held alternative beliefs, and during the program we will both make that clear and insist that the Marion County representative also does that. But we felt at the time, and continue to feel, that the technological and financial implications of the whole issue are complicated enough to merit an information session solely. 

 

Personally, I am coming to the position that a pro/con session (call it a debate or not...) might well be unsatisfactory to everyone and serve to confuse the issue. This is not consistent with the purposes of the City Club, as I hope you will agree.

 

The County, furthermore, is the public sector entity that is ultimately responsible for the decision, (whether we like that or not) and they control the budgetary and licensing implications for all of us.

   

Further, however, I agree with you that they are ultimately responsible for taking into account in their decision the environmental health of their constituents -- possibly a more important consideration than the financial.  (I personally would intend to bring that issue up immediately in the question and answer period.)

 

Also, personally, I think the issue of green energy credits for such an operation is somewhere between a real stretch and a farce. And I realize that issue will be before the Legislature as we speak. 

 

However, I tend to discount any argument that the timing, therefore, is unfortunate. I'm not sure there's any relationship that we should worry about. We are not speaking in our program to support or not for that bill -- it wasn't an issue when we first had contact with Marion County last fall about doing this program. 

   

I hope you attend and listen carefully to the program. Your thoughts, then and now, are welcome.

 

Well, just City Club members are allowed to ask questions. Others only get to ask a question if no City Club members have raised their hand to do so.

 

Further, it is emphasized that questions should be just that, not statements. So it will be very difficult for members of the audience to refute what the Marion County representatives say in the brief period allowed for questions.

Oregon's urban-rural divide explained by political scientist

So, why is there such a tension between people in rural Oregon and urban Oregon?

We saw this divide in action earlier in 2019, when Republicans in the state Senate walked out in protest of a climate change bill, supported by loggers driving their trucks in circles around the Capitol building, horns blaring.

Today a political scientist from Western Oregon University, Mark Henkels, offered up some explanations of what's going on here in the course of his presentation at a Salem City Club meeting, It's Complicated: The Politics of Oregon's Rural-Urban Divide.

Mark Henkels

Early on in his talk, Henkels defined "urban" and "rural" as applied to Oregon counties. He considers that our state has six urban counties: Benton, Clackamas, Lane, Marion, Multnomah, and Washington. The rest of the state is rural.

He said that because Salem is the second or third largest city in Oregon, that argues for Marion County being urban. Deschutes County includes Bend, so arguably it is semi-urban, but not enough to make his urban cut.

No big surprise: currently rural Oregon is more Republican than urban Oregon.

But back in 1988, that wasn't the case. Democrats even had a slight edge over Republicans in rural areas, 47% to 41%. (Henkels did mention that many of the Dems were Reagan voters who hadn't changed their registration.) And in urban areas Democrats and Republicans each had 44%.

Much had changed by 2018.

Rural Oregon was only 27% Democratic, a drop of twenty points, while Republican registration declined by only eight points to 33%, with non-affiliated voters jumping markedly from 13% to 33%. In urban areas, Democrats had come to vastly outnumber Republicans, 41% to 21%, with non-affiliated voters rising to 31% of the electorate.

Henkels considers that economic trends explain much of the political changes. 

Rural Oregon still tilts toward agricultural and industrial sectors, while urban Oregon has become largely post-industrial. Meaning, services, high-tech, medical, and education sectors. Post-industrial workers are more diverse. They move around a lot. They go where the jobs are.

By contrast, traditionally a family farm often was worked by succeeding generations, and a child might follow a parent in working at the same industrial plant. 

Agriculture and industry tend to foster social stability, traditional values, and a desire to preserve the existing economy. Henkels called this cluster "material" values, which doesn't really mean materialistic or non-spiritual. Rather, I took that term to mean a connection to what already exists, a conservative clinging to the things that have worked in the past.

Urban areas in Oregon tend to embrace post-materialist values.

Quality of life is as important, if not more so, than how much money someone makes. Protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are valued goals. This slide shows how drastically rural Oregon and urban Oregon differ in this regard.

A whopping 59% of the Portland metro area holds post-materialist values, while all urban areas are at 46% and rural areas only 17%. Looking at political leaning rather than geography, 49% of liberals are post-materialist, while moderates are at 33% and conservatives at 18%.

While this is my take, not that of Henkels, it seems to me that it's totally wrong to say that rural conservatives are "values voters." Actually, urban liberals hold equally strong values, just different ones. It means as much to a Portland progressive that Oregon does more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it means to an Eastern Oregon conservative that logging jobs be protected.

Along that line, this slide shows that more lumber is being produced with fewer mills, and hence fewer workers. Henkels said this mirrors trends in other American industries, with automation and production in foreign countries leading to industrial job losses in this country.

So Henkels noted there isn't an easy answer to the question, "What is it like to be a true Oregonian?" People with widely divergent values or political leanings can say with equal fervor, "I'm an Oregonian. This is the way it should be."

One reason the urban-rural divide has become so extreme is that political beliefs in general have become more extreme. The slide above shows the distribution of Democrats and Republicans on a scale of political values. The vertical lines show the median value on the scale, so the closer the two lines are, the more closely Democrats and Republicans agree.  

The gap has widened markedly since 2004.

Exacerbating this tribalism, Henkels said that politics has become nationalized, with candidates in local elections taking on national party positions to a greater extent than before. And increasingly people get their news and opinions from different media outlets, Fox News vs. MSNBC being one example. He also noted that in many rural parts of Oregon, conservative talk radio from national sources is ubiquitous, whereas urban areas have more choices.

On the plus side, near the end of his talk Henkels said that Oregonians share a lot of values. We value good education and quality health care. We agree about environmental protections in some areas, such as preserving salmon runs. We value aging services, an area that Oregon has been a pioneer in.

The suburbs and growing cities like Bend could become the new middle ground. A more complex economy in rural areas likely would narrow the values gap between urban and rural Oregon.

In the Q&A period, Henkels talked some about Oregon's land use system. Rural people often blame urban growth boundaries and other aspects of our land use laws for the problems facing the agricultural and industrial sectors. However, he noted that the area outside Sacramento looks very different from the area outside Salem, even though both are state capitals.

Oregon has considerably more protections for agricultural land, which is why we have farmland so close to urban areas, rather than sprawling subdivisions. So farmers should be thankful for our land use system, though naturally there's room for improvement in it.