Salem Political Snark

Dumb and dumber: Capitol vandals and Sam Brentano

Saturday's Statesman Journal featured stories about a couple of spectacularly dumb local people. It took me a while to decide who deserves the "dumb" award in this blog post, and who the "dumber," but I'm going with this:

Dumb -- whoever spray painted two marble sculptures in front of the state Capitol building during the first weekend of Black Lives Matter protests.

Dumber -- Marion County commissioner Sam Brentano, for being so irritated at Governor Brown's pausing of county reopening plans due to a spike in coronavirus cases in Oregon.

Sure, it can be argued that these dumb and dumber awards should be switched, and I could go along with that argument, because each of these individuals engaged in some spectacularly misinformed behavior.

Looking at the spray painter first, who so far hasn't been identified, I wish I could share an online link to this Statesman Journal story. But after two days it hasn't appeared on the newspaper's web site, for some baffling reason. 

Anyway, here's a photo of the front page of the print edition.

This is how the story by Capi Lynn starts out.

A pair of massive marble sculptures stand sentinel in front of the Oregon State Capitol. Their heroic figures, carved deep into the history of our state, flank the majestic granite steps leading to the main entrance, acting as both guards and greeters. 

But their vulnerability was exposed during the first weekend of protests.

Vandals defaced the 81-year-old sculptures by spray-painting profanity-laced messages on their stone surfaces. Their pedestals are made of granite.

A mason restoration company from Tigard has been working all week to remove the paint with little success, and the sculptures remain covered with tarps.

"It's not working very good because we didn't get on it soon enough," Joe Bryson of Pioneer Waterproofing Co. said Friday. "The longer it sits on there, the harder it is to get off. We keep trying, but I don't know if it will ever come off." 

The vandalism occurred between 10 p.m. Saturday, May 30, and 12:30 a.m. Sunday, May 31, the first weekend crowds gathered at the Capitol protest [against] police brutality and the death of George Floyd.

l have no idea how anyone could think that spray-painting graffiti on the sculptures helps in any way to further the Black Lives Matter movement. Actually, it hurts the movement, by distracting attention from the many positive aspects of the protests to this senseless act of vandalism.

Hopefully the vandals will be identified and punished. The story ends with: "If you have information about the incident, contact Trooper Greg Williams at the Capitol Mall Area Command, 503-986-1122."

Now, as dumb as the spray-painting was, it didn't cause physical harm to any people, just the statues. So Commissioner Sam Brentano gets the dumber award because another front-page story, "Marion, Polk, wait for more reopening," shows how clueless Brentano is about the danger reopening too quickly poses to Oregonians.

Here's excerpts from the story by Claire Withycombe.

Bars and restaurants in Marion and Polk counties will still be closing by 10 p.m., and residents still can't go bowling or to a movie theater, for at least one more week due to a recent jump in cases of COVID-19.

Nearly all of Oregon's counties have been approved by the governor's office to "reopen" for some public activities after months of what was practically a lockdown to slow the spread of the new coronavirus. 

Brown's office has laid out a plan that allows each county to apply to reopen in three phases.

Marion and Polk counties are currently in the first phase, which allows limited reopening of restaurants and bars and gatherings of up to 25 people. You can see what else you can do during the first phase on the governor's website.

But no county will be permitted to open up any further for another week at least, Brown announced Thursday. That means Marion and Polk counties' efforts to move into the second phase won't be approved for at least another week.

...On Thursday, the Oregon Health Authority reported 178 new cases, the most in a single day since the pandemic started. On Friday, another 142 cases were announced.

...Local county commissioners expressed disappointment after Brown's decision.

"We're not going to be able to go like this forever," said Marion County Commissioner Sam Brentano, reached by phone Friday morning. "All government should be doing is alerting when there's a problem and then let people make their own choices to protect themselves."

Brentano said he was concerned by the uptick in cases in Marion County, which reported 29 new cases Friday.

"Right now is a dangerous time, and that part's right," Brentano said. "But I don't feel I want to continue leaving authority to make decisions to live or operate up to the state."

Spoken like the true science-denier that you are, Commissioner Brentano. He has been an outspoken opponent of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, since Brentano doesn't believe that humans are causing the global warming that is having increasingly disastrous consequences.

So it isn't surprising that just as Brentano wants people and corporations to be able to spew as many carbon emissions as they want, he also wants to allow individuals and businesses to be able to spread the coronavirus in any way they want.

Fortunately, Brentano isn't in charge of Oregon. Governor Kate Brown is. And she is relying on advice from our state's public health experts as she makes decisions about how to re-open Oregon safely, decisions that the Oregon Supreme Court recently has ruled are totally legal.

UPDATE: Just came across this apt passage in a Texas Monthly story that I read vis Apple News.

A version of “personal responsibility” that looks like “I’ll take responsibility for my risk, and you take responsibility for your risk,” though, neglects the reality of a pandemic. Responsibility may be personal—but risk is communal. Everyone can both get sick with the virus and pass it on to someone else.

A person who gets infected while packed into an overcrowded bar can pass the disease to a supermarket cashier who is otherwise steadfastly avoiding high-risk situations. A healthy young person whose sense of personal responsibility leaves him comfortable spending a leisurely evening in a bustling restaurant can infect a roommate who works in a nursing home.

Trump will have to pry Oregon's stay-home order out of my cold, dead hands

Today President Trump's authoritarianism reached a peak when he said at the White House coronavirus briefing that his authority is total. This was in reference to his supposed ability to order states to relax their stay-at-home and physical distancing orders.

“The president of the United States calls the shots,” he said at his evening news briefing. “They can’t do anything without the approval of the president of the United States.”

Asked what provisions of the Constitution gave him the power to override the states if they wanted to remain closed, he said, “Numerous provisions,” without naming any. “When somebody’s the president of the United States, the authority is total.”

Well, I'm eager to learn how all the conservatives who champion states rights will react to this extremely dubious interpretation of the constitution, which gives a lot of power to states, including when it comes to public health. 

Twenty years ago Charlton Heston warned of government overreach when he said at a NRA (National Rifle Association) speech:

"So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 'From my cold, dead hands.'"

Mr. President, that's exactly how I feel about your absurd attempt to determine how Oregon should respond to the coronavirus crisis. Our governor, Kate Brown, has issued an executive Stay Home, Save Lives order. It's working well, and it needs to remain in place until, according to Brown, Oregon has ten days without a COVID-19 death.

There's no way that I, along with most other Oregonians, would patronize a business that chooses to ignore the governor's order if it is more restrictive than whatever plan for reopening our state's economy Trump comes up with. So Trump needs to understand that most Americans trust our local leaders a heck of a lot more than the would-be dictator who currently inhabits the White House.

It's beyond absurd that while Trump has been saying for weeks that it is up to each state to determine how it will deal with the coronavirus pandemic, which has led to stay-at-home orders in most states, Trump now is claiming that he has the sole authority to rescind or alter those orders even though he had nothing to do with putting them in place.

My wife and I live in a rural area about five miles from the Salem city limits. That isn't far geographically, but it is a light year politically from the mostly liberal capital city of Oregon. 

We regularly are treated to the sound of loud gunshots as some of our mostly conservative neighbors do some target practicing. They aren't shy about saying that they want to be ready when either social breakdown occurs as a result of the coronavirus crisis and urban hordes descend upon us country folk, or when the black helicopters arrive from the United Nations or a Democratic president to take away their guns.

But it turns out that the biggest threat to our freedom is coming from a Republican president who wrongly believes that the president can do whatever they want. 

Imagine what would happen if somehow, against all odds, Trump was to succeed in getting the Supreme Court to agree that, as Trump argued today, the president's authority is total. Meaning, there are no curbs on it. None. Zilch. Nada. This would mean that a President Biden could do whatever he wanted to combat global warming, reduce gun deaths, or deal with any other emergency that was declared from the Oval Office.

I can guarantee that Fox News would have a total freak-out, along with other right-wing organizations and leaders. So that's why I'm intensely interested in how conservatives are going to respond to Trump's assertion that there are no limits on what a president can do. 

Sure, Trump has been acting as if this was the case -- ignoring subpoenas from Congress, bashing reporters who dare to ask probing questions, and in so many other ways trashing the norms of how a president should behave in a constitutional democracy. Today, though, Trump explicitly stated that he can do whatever he wants. 

And when a reporter asked Vice President Pence if he agreed that this was the case, Pence stood in front of the microphone and said the powers of the presidency are “unquestionably plenary”. In other words, absolute. 

This should scare all Americans, liberal, conservative, everybody. A bit of good news is that a story in the Washington Examiner, a conservative newspaper, took issue with Trump's bizarre interpretation of the Constitution.

Contrary to what President Trump seems to think, he does not have the authority to dictate when and how individual states reopen as the threat posed by the coronavirus diminishes. Nor should he want it.

This assertion — that only Trump can decide the question of reopening — is obviously wrong, as anyone remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the principles of federalism understands. Only the individual governors can decide when their states will begin to reopen, and only they can determine what that process will look like.

...Whatever plan Trump does roll out must be specific, and it must be respectful of the states. He cannot rule by fiat, and a pandemic does not change that.

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.