Oregon

SEE TWO

519 win a tag OR

capt 519 bak

===

10 24

for the first time, a gas utility could be on the hook for its role in deceiving the public about the climate crisis. Multnomah, Oregon, has added NW Natural — Oregon’s oldest and largest supplier of “natural” gas, also known as fossil or methane gas — to the list of defendants in a lawsuit that seeks to make fossil fuel companies pay $52 billion for their role in the deadly 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome.

NW Natural “has routinely misrepresented” the climate harms of gas while undermining the energy transition “in an effort to frighten customers and discourage policy makers from using their authority to protect the public,” according to the county’s amended complaint. The company has portrayed gas as “safe, clean, and environmentally friendly,” despite the fact that methane, its primary component, is 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

In its original complaint, Oregon’s most populous county argued that oil and gas companies’ decades-long climate deception helped lead to the heat dome that killed 69 people in Multnomah — an event scientists said would have been “virtually impossible” without climate change. The 2023 lawsuit seeks to recover costs incurred from other extreme weather events and make Exxon, Chevron, McKinsey, and other defendants pay for a range of adaptation measures to protect residents from future ones. The updated complaint now adds that NW Natural “engaged in an enterprise of misrepresentation about the effects its products would have on the climate, and that the use of its products could cause an extreme heat event to occur.”

That enterprise has reportedly ramped up in recent years as the company fights a growing push for policies to limit emissions and phase out their product. The utility has run advertising campaigns touting “renewable natural gas,” targeted children through school books depicting gas as safe and clean, and created front groups posing as local grassroots advocates to fight electrification and promote “consumer choice,” according to evidence cited by the complaint and further detailed in additional reporting, investigations, and challenges to state regulators.

“As we learned in this country when we took on big tobacco, this is not an easy step or one I take lightly but I do believe it’s our best way to fight for our community and protect our future,” Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson said in a press release.

Like many fossil fuel and petrochemical companies, NW Natural sponsors sporting events, concerts, and small nonprofits in the region reliant on external funding. The utility’s embedded presence in the community makes it all the more important for the county to “highlight the insidious nature of their communications,” said Carra Sahler, a Multnomah County resident and Director and Staff Attorney at the Green Energy Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School, which has represented advocacy groups in cases against NW Natural for customer rate hikes.

Sept 13, 2024 via X

“People want to trust that their utility is doing the right thing, that the utility is providing the information necessary for them to make choices about their energy use,” Sahler said. “It feels like we’ve crossed into a new era where there is no way forward but to stop [NW Natural] from spreading misinformation.”

“Renewable natural gas”

On a “low carbon energy future” page on its website, NW Natural claims it “has an important role to play in helping our region move to a lower-carbon, renewable energy future in a more resilient and affordable way.” The company goes on to boast its investments in so-called “renewable natural gas,” or gas acquired from decomposing organic matter at livestock operations and landfills.

For years, the utility has used customers’ money to fund ad campaigns promoting “renewable natural gas,” blasting out the slogan “Less We Can,” and insinuating that the company is already providing the “renewable” energy source to Oregon homes. The utility calls RNG a “carbon neutral resource,” but its own filings with Oregon regulators show that’s not true: two of its extraction sites at Tyson slaughterhouses in Nebraska, for example, have a climate footprint.

The company also appears to overstate its use of RNG in its operations. At the Tyson slaughterhouses, the Nebraska-sourced gas is piped mainly to Nebraska customers rather than Oregonians, ProPublica reporters found. And according to the company’s reports, RNG makes up less than 1% of the total gas acquired by NW Natural — a statistic the company blames on “uncertain support from policy makers and regulators, coupled with ongoing barriers created by certain climate advocates.”

According to ads and internal powerpoints scrutinized by DeSmog and documents revealed by ProPublica, the RNG ad campaigns were part of a strategy to beat back the growing “anti-fossil fuel chorus.” That strategy also involved convincing the state legislature to greenlight a state-produced inventory of Oregon’s “technical potential” for “RNG,” and using the highest possible estimates — the amount of RNG Oregon could produce if it had unlimited money — to successfully lobby for another bill to make ratepayers cover the added costs of the biogas, and establish voluntary goals for its use, which the utility would then use to battle regulation.

Targeting schools

NW Natural’s campaign to “promote the continued use and consumption of fossil fuel gas by influencing public opinion” also “targets the next generation through children,” according to Multnomah’s complaint, which cites “gas-related” activity workbooks sent by NW Natural to schools. The books, which target children as young as kindergartners, use puzzles, word games, cartoons, and other activities depicting fossil gas as safe, clean, and beneficial for society, reporting from DeSmog found.

Screenshot from formal testimony to the PUC on April 22, 2022, cited in Multnomah’s complaint.

A group funded by the utility, called Bonneville Environmental Foundation, also planned an event for teachers — which was ultimately canceled after students planned to protest— called “Clean Energy Teacher Training: Exploring Renewable Gas.” The utility promised each teacher who attended the session in Portland a $200 stipend, plus reimbursement for mileage if they traveled more than 50 miles.

In 2022, a coalition of nonprofits and state representatives sent a letter calling on Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum to investigate the utility’s “misleading advertising,” stating that “it is particularly concerning that school children are being subjected to misinformation from corporate entities of any kind, but especially by a fossil fuel corporation selling a product that is harmful to children’s health.” In 2023, the group once again called on the AG to “investigate and sue NW Natural if appropriate.”

In response to concerns raised by a coalition of local environmental and consumer advocates, the state Public Utility Commission ruled in April that NW Natural can no longer charge ratepayers for pro-gas advertising targeting schoolchildren.

Battling climate action

NW Natural hasn’t just advertised fossil gas as a cleaner, “renewable” fuel — it has also fought policies to reduce emissions and shift toward electrification. Reports show the utility hired a scientist to oppose bans on gas in new construction, worked with a public relations firm and its front group to “defeat policies detrimental to the natural gas industry,” and sued the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission over the state’s landmark Climate Protection Program that aimed to reduce emissions.

The company even posed as a local grassroots group to oppose a partial ban on new natural gas construction by Eugene’s City Council in 2023. Just days after the ban was passed, “Eugene Residents for Energy Choice” was registered with the Oregon Secretary of State. Funded by NW Natural to the tune of nearly $950,000 in a span of two weeks, the group collected signatures to revoke the ban — which was ultimately repealed by the city council.

Recently, state regulators accused NW Natural of misleading consumers about Oregon’s carbon crediting program after the utility claimed in a newsletter that the program would raise rates without reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

NW Natural’s actions are part of a much larger push by the gas industry to fight regulations, including longstanding campaigns by the American Gas Association — an industry trade group of which it is a member, and where its CEO, David Anderson, [sits on the board]

https://substack.com/redirect/29c56708-84aa-4364-b1fc-3a6c46f36cba?j=eyJ1IjoiN3ltancifQ.i0HJl3aVWG8sHp566T-pebMssFGKcgvxVOFLuZyEDpw

. As more communities pass laws to tighten standards for appliances and limit new construction of gas pipelines to homes and businesses, the group’s campaigns to counter scientific evidence that using gas stoves is harmful to human health have resurfaced.

Another new defendant

Multnomah County’s amended complaint adds one more new defendant to the case: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The nonprofit ran the 1998 “Oregon Petition,” which claimed to capture signatures from 17,000 scientists who agreed there was “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

In reality, the petition was not signed by 17,000 scientists, but included fictitious names, deceased persons, and celebrities, according to the complaint. The project was designed to look as though it was approved by the National Academy of Scientists, but was actually authored by Fred Seitz, cofounder of the Exxon-backed think tank GMI.

“A signal to the gas industry”

In June, the county won a procedural victory when a federal courtruled that its lawsuit could move forward in state court.

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor and senior fellow at Vermont Law School, said the evidence of the utility’s deception cited in the complaint fell short of the “massive” amount of evidence plaintiffs have cited against oil companies. Further evidence of NW Natural’s deception could expand through the course of discovery and additional reporting, he added.

Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, agreed that gas utilities’ “histories of climate deception have not been as thoroughly mined as those of the oil companies,” but noted that additional evidence could land more utilities in court for climate deception.

“It does send a signal to the gas industry that these sorts of plaintiffs are looking at them more closely than they have in the past,” Gerrard said.

===

aha /doh: pot legalized via prop, jeff feds resist; decrim really 1st and only concrete step to crim justice reform? (after koch backed bill?]

an 1220

oregon just decriminalized all drugs – here’s why voters passed this groundbreaking reform

The Conversation

Scott Akins, Oregon State University and Clayton Mosher, Washington State University

Oregon became the first state in the United States to decriminalize the possession of all drugs on Nov. 3, 2020...

820

what Happened When a Public Institute Became a De Facto Lobbying Arm of the Timber Industry

Internal emails show a tax-funded agency created to educate people about forestry has acted as a public-relations agency and lobbying arm for Oregon’s timber industry, in some cases skirting legal constraints that forbid it from doing so.

by Rob Davis, The Oregonian/OregonLive, and Tony Schick, OPB

see portland secret police, retaliation, threat to pull $

Oregon

State law passed in 1987: "Oregon Revised Statute 181.850, which prohibits law enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any criminal activities.^[169][170]

Beaverton city council passed a resolution in January 2017 stating, in part, "The City of Beaverton is committed to living its values as a welcoming city for all individuals ...regardless of a person's ... immigration status" and that they would abide by Oregon state law of not enforcing federal immigration laws.^[171]
Corvallis^[172]
Portland^[173]

FB /org ~ cap and trade?

https:/yyy.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/14/disinformation-oregon-wildfires-spreading-social-media

no lnx pix

Rumors find fertile ground in Oregon, a state already divided after months of protests – and are complicating emergency responses

Jason Wilson in Portland

@jason_a_w

Mon 14 Sep 2020

Photojournalist Nathan Howard was on assignment for a picture agency south-east of the fire-menaced foothill town of Estacada, Oregon, on Thursday afternoon when a man angrily approached him on a rural roadside.

The man insisted the photographer was a looter, Howard said, and despite his repeated attempts to identify himself as a journalist, the man began yelling and became so agitated that “it was like his eyes were popping out of his head”. The man eventually allowed Howard to get in his car and leave, but gave chase as Howard drove north.

Then a second truck approached from the opposite direction, Howard said, and parked horizontally across the highway, blocking both lanes. A man climbed from the truck and pointed a loaded assault rifle at Howard through his car’s windshield, and again accused him of looting, his finger on the trigger.

“He was saying, ‘you’re a looter, you have to get out of here’”, Howard said in a telephone conversation, “and I was like, ‘you’re blocking the road, I can’t move’, and that conversation went on for three solid minutes.”

Thursday’s highway standoff highlights the real life consequences of the wave of disinformation on social media about the cause of wildfires raging across the Pacific north-west. Many of the rumors baselessly claim that the fires were lit by political activists, either by the far-right group the Proud Boys or the leftist activists known as antifa.

Although there have been arrests for alleged arson amid the fires, authorities have vehemently denied political motivations. The majority of fires across Oregon and the west appear to have been sparked by power lines and other ignitions, and have exploded amid dry, hot and windy weather conditions in a landscape primed for fire because of drought.

Matt Watts stands guard outside his home after many of his neighbors evacuated the area, in Estacada, Oregon, on Saturday. Many residents are concerned looters are breaking homes left empty by people fleeing the fires.]

Officials in Oregon have turned to Facebook to knock down the competing narratives,and the FBI has said it has investigated several claims and found them to be untrue. But the rumors have found fertile ground in a state already divided after months of protests. They are complicating the emergency response, including by motivating armed patrols in towns gripped by rumors of antifa arson attacks, and inspiring vigilante acts like the incident with Howard.

On the source of his assailants’ behavior, Howard said, “it has to be Facebook”, noting that in his own monitoring of Estacada Facebook groups during his reporting in the area, he had noticed the same rumors of antifa looters and arsonists that are still firehosing through similar pages throughout the west.

Posts made this week inside an Oregon-based private Facebook groups, and viewed by the Guardian, are indicative of the way that these rumors are forming a nexus between local communities, sometimes-violent protest groups, and even elected officials in rural areas.

On Wednesday evening, in Curry News and Views, a private Facebook group associated with far south-western Curry county, two GOP-aligned elected officials appeared to promote disinformation.

Christopher Paasch, a Curry county commissioner, had previously spread a viral meme that baselessly claimed that seven antifa activists had been arrested for arson in Medford, and in a post to the group, a local Facebook user accused him of spreading an “unsubstantiated rumor”.

In comments on the post, Paasch first falsely denied that his original post “said they were antifa”, and then added a further post discussing an unrelated fire in Gold Beach, with the comment, “You think no one is lighting fires and trying to burn down towns and hurt people, wake up.”

Later, Oregon state representative David Brock Smith weighed in to defend Paasch, and the post, writing, “there are individuals out there hellbent on destruction. I’m not saying they’re associated with any group, but more information is coming to light by the hour.”

Paasch did not immediately respond to questions about who they thought was deliberately lighting fires, and for what purpose.

Smith responded to questions in an email, writing: “I was very clear in my comments; on a post from an individual who constantly vilifies individuals that do not agree with her, and stated multiple times that I am not associating arson activities to any group”, attaching screenshots and links to a series of unrelated arsons, or suspected arsons, in disparate areas of the state.

There were more concentrated streams of disinformation inside the private group for COPS NW, an organizing network that has recently promoted a series of pro-Trump, pro-police and anti-Black Lives Matter demonstrations around north-west Oregon that have at times culminated in violent confrontations with Black Lives Matter protesters.

In past days, COPS NW has featured intense discussions on a series of false stories and rumors about antifa arsonists, including baseless claims that an activist had been arrested for lighting fires near Salem and another had been rammed while lighting fires in now-evacuated Beavercreek. The group also discussed a viral post that falsely claimed that the fires were a “coordinated and planned attack” and that an arsonist had been shot and killed by a property owner near Damascus.

The leader of COPS NW, Audra Price, has consistently said in public to have peaceful aims, but suggested after days in which such material had been circulating virtually unchallenged in the group that perhaps violence was necessary. “Maybe allowing Antifa to terrorize our cities for as long as they did, was the wrong choice for us to make. I sure hope our passivity didn’t contribute to what’s going on now.I won’t lie. I’m very torn about whether or not, my encouraging people to remain peaceful, was the right choice,” Price wrote.

Oregon state police and an Oregon Department of Transportation official confer at a roadblock at the McKenzie Fire District Station in Leaburg, Oregon, on 8 September.]

On Friday, Price posted a message she said came from “an LEO in Clackamas”, using an abbreviation for law enforcement officers. The post pleaded with the group to stop circulating false information about the fires and echoed other pleas from first responders aimed at staunching the flow of false information.

“The false info spreading faster than the fire is hindering our efforts,” the message said. “NO Antifa have been arrested for arson in our area. This false info is making our jobs more difficult by having to check fictitious problems and deal with neighborhood militias that mean well, but are interfering with our efforts.”

Price prefaced the relayed text with a disclaimer: “I am just as confused by his message as all of you are and I told the officer that. I explained that I have a few people who I trust make the claim that CCSO and other LE told them it is antifa.”

Most commenters in the group flatly rejected the idea that they were believing and were spreading false information. One user said of alleged antifa arsonists, “So unless it’s tattooed on their forehead it’s not true??? I’ll judge for myself thank you.” Another remarked, “This is disappointing, especially when we know better. I feel like someone is running a large scale cover up from the top.”

In response to questions about disinformation in her group, and her apparent call for violence, Price wrote in a Facebook message, “I have no comment to you. You twist things and you lie. Why in the world, would I give you any answers?”

Just like earlier this year in Australia, when some mainstream outlets spurred along “claims of an arson emergency” during the bushfire emergency, the conspiracy theories in the US west have found their way to locally influential conservative broadcasters.

Lars Larson, who is based in Portland, but whose rightwing talk radio show is nationally syndicated, has received national attention in recent years after getting to ask questions at White House press briefings.

On Wednesday, near the top of the show, Larson introduced the topic of fires by remarking, “Like a lot of you I suspect … All of these fires within a 24-48-hour period makes me suspicious.”

On Thursday, Larson followed up by entertaining what he admitted was a conspiracy theory, telling his audience that “I want to suggest to you … that these may have been some kind of planned action.”

He then invited his audience to call in about “the suspicion that a lot of you have that the folks who have been setting fires in downtown Portland, and downtown Seattle, that they may be involved as well”, referring to leftist protesters.

An email sent to Larson’s producer on Thursday asking for specific evidence for antifa involvement in the fires, and the ethics of broadcasting rumors, went unanswered.

Facebook also did not respond to a request for comment about disinformation on the platform.

Howard managed to extricate himself from the standoff near Estacada after a third truck appeared; its driver asked him what he was doing, wished him good luck, and drove off. His captors then moved enough to allow him to drive on.

But he says that the climate of disinformation, a new suspicion of journalists, and the potential for violence have led to misgivings about returning to those parts of the state most in need of coverage, and an antidote to the false claims running the table on social media.

“Huge parts of the state are being destroyed by fire,” he said, “and we can’t document it because that’s exactly where conspiracy theories are running wild.”

oregon Republicans Nominate QAnon Believer for U.S. Senate

rww

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/libertarian-journalist-explains-the-links-between-qanon-and-fundamentalist-christianity/

this week in Oregon, Republican primary voters picked a major extremist to run against incumbent Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley in the general election: Jo Rae Perkins, who is an avowed believer in the QAnon conspiracy theory.Perkins won by almost 20%, which was certainly decisive — and given how much of a blue state Oregon is, pundits are predicting that Merkley will enjoy a landslide victory over Perkins in November.

Despite the fact that this choice is likely to be a huge electoral blunder, we can’t totally disregard the QAnon believers. Those who embrace the QAnon cult are quite serious about it — as serious as evangelical Christian fundamentalists are about their faith, according to libertarian journalist Bonnie Kristian.

919 cmd

Oregon Strengthens Public Workers’ Right to Organize

https://www.apnews.com

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said Monday that she’s ready to use her

executive power to lower carbon emissions following a nine-day Republican walkout that

derailed landmark climate legislation and embroiled the state in a political crisis pitting liberal cities against rural residents.

The Democratic governor said she wants to move forward through the executive branch if lawmakers can’t approve meaningful climate legislation. She directed her staff to go back to rural communities and industries over the next few months to find points of compromise on what would be the nation’s second statewide cap and trade program.

Brown will present lawmakers with proposed “modifications” to the plan but is prepared to take the matter into her own hands if she still can’t find a path forward in the Statehouse.

“Working on legislation is my preferred approach,” she told reporters. “However, given the uncertainty that now permeates Oregon’s political system, I am also directing my staff and agencies to explore alternative paths.”

Two representatives for the Senate’s Republican caucus didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment on the governor’s plans.

The proposal caps climate-changing emissions and requires businesses to buy or trade an ever-dwindling pool of pollution credits or “allowances.” California has a similar program.

The idea divided the Statehouse and revealed lingering tensions between liberal cities like Portland that want to combat climate change and rural areas of the state where the legislation was seen as a further threat to industries like farming, logging and trucking.

Senate Republicans walked out to block a vote on the measure and only came back after getting reassurances it was dead. They said the legislation would kill jobs, raise the cost of fuel and gut small businesses in rural areas. Loggers, truckers and others flooded the Capitol to support the Republicans who walked out.

Democrats say the legislation is critical to make Oregon a leader in the fight against climate change and will ultimately create jobs and transform the economy.

They said the program would raise tens of millions of dollars that would go toward further emissions-cutting projects and wildfire prevention efforts. Much of the funding also would flow directly to rural communities and Native American tribes to prepare for the worst effects of climate change, supporters say.

“This is a priority,” said Tera Hurst, executive director of Renew Oregon, the lobbying group behind the original legislation. “It is our moral imperative we do not delay another year. Climate change is an emergency.”

Brown has a tough path forward if she wants to craft legislation that both responds to industry concerns and still puts Oregon on a path toward meeting its ambitious goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The original cap and trade proposal would have begun in 2021 and put the state on track to lower emissions to 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2035 and 80 percent below by 2050.

Delaying the program could mean lawmakers will need to craft a more ambitious and aggressive program to meet the state’s emission goals.

Brown said it would have been better for industries and other opponents to come to the table rather than “blow the whole thing up.” She said delaying the process further is like “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”

“This program will have to be more aggressive,” the governor said. “Because the time pressures are still there and I’m committed to keeping those goals for our children and our children’s future.”

abscond to idaho and montana; earlier gamed out on vaxxer

peace officer assoc?

no lnx many vid

https://www.ecowatch.com/oregon-senators-climate-bill-2638988850.html

Climate Bill Oregon Republicans Fled to Avoid Is Dead, Senate President Says

Olivia Rosane 4 hours ago POLITICS

The Oregon Senate Chamber. Cacophony / CC BY 3.0

Six days after Republican Oregon Senators fled the state to avoid voting on a bill to address the climate crisis, the Senate president declared the bill dead.

"What I'm about to say I say of my own free will. No one has told me to say this," Senate President Peter Courtney said Tuesday, as NPR reported. "HB 2020 does not have the votes on the Senate floor. That will not change."

His announcement earned instant condemnation from supporters of the cap-and-trade bill, which would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent of 1990 levels by 2035 and 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. Those inside the gallery stood up and turned their backs on Courtney as he spoke, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

Embedded video

Tony

@TonyOEC

This just happened. NOT ONLY is it about other bills but it’s about #HB2020 too and not giving in! #ORleg #ORpol #PassCEJ!!

10:27 AM - Jun 25, 2019

See Tony's other Tweets

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Outside the Senate, protesters began to chant "Hey hey, ho, ho, President Courtney has got to go."

Dina Le Roux

@DinaRoux

We’re not ok with your decision Peter Courtney #ORpol #orleg #ClimateActionNow https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1yNxavVYrnjKj …

10:32 AM - Jun 25, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

?We’re not ok with your decision Peter Courtney #ORpol #orleg #ClimateActionNow ?

Dina Le Roux @DinaRoux

See Dina Le Roux's other Tweets

Green group Renew Oregon Executive Director Tera Hurst said in a statement that the group had counted enough votes to pass the bill.

"This is the biggest failure of public leadership in Oregon in recent memory," Hurst told reporter Claire Withycombe.

Democrats needed 16 of 18 members to vote yes in order for the bill to pass, Oregon Live explained. Senator Betsy Johnson had officially opposed it and Senator Arnie Roblan had voiced concerns about its impact on gas prices. Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson, who was pushing for concessions on behalf of Boeing, a major employer in her district, was said by Capitol sources to be the third no vote, though environmental groups said she had told them she would vote yes.

Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, who supports the bill, agreed with Courtney's assessment of the vote count.

"As the person who counts the votes, my personal sense is that the votes were not there," she told Oregon Public Broadcasting.

However, if Courtney's announcement is a concession, it is unclear if it will succeed in bringing the Republican Senators back to work. This is partly due to the fact that the bill, which has already had a final reading, is now scheduled for a vote. To avoid this, the Senate could vote to send it to committee or postpone it indefinitely, but both actions would require a quorum, meaning at least two fugitive Republicans would have to return, Oregon Live explained.

"I still have caucus members who are worried if it's on the floor, it'll get called up and, boom, it's passed," Republican Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger Jr. told Oregon Public Broadcasting by phone Tuesday. "Unfortunately we've been told a lot of things this session that didn't happen. The trust element is extremely low right now."

Courtney urged Republicans back so they could tackle other pending bills dealing with public safety, education and plans to strengthen rules against sexual misconduct in schools and improve Oregon's child welfare program. If pending bills are not passed before the session ends June 30, they will be wiped from the record and would need to be reintroduced in a special session, according to Oregon Live.

"Senate Republicans have blocked a bill that provides a better future for our state and for our children, and the tactics they employed to do so are not just unacceptable, but dangerous," Oregon Governor Kate Brown said in a statement reported by Oregon Live.

She urged the absent Senators to return.

"Are they against climate change legislation or are they against democracy? If they are not back by Wednesday afternoon, we will know the answer," she said.

Embedded video

Governor Kate Brown

@OregonGovBrown

Are Senate Republicans against climate change legislation or are they against democracy?

575

12:25 PM - Jun 25, 2019

525 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The bill would have been the second of its kind to pass in the U.S. after California and would have capped emissions and auctioned off pollution allowances per ton of carbon dioxide. Climate activists expressed concern about the national implications of events in Oregon.

"Essentially, democracy doesn't exist in Oregon right now," meteorologist and Grist writer Eric Holthaus Tweeted. "If Republicans in other states are watching, which of course they are, and attempt to mimic this tactic, no election matters anymore."

Eric Holthaus

@EricHolthaus

This is a fucking disgrace.

In Oregon, Republicans fled the state to avoid voting on a climate bill and threatened physical violence against the state police if they attempted to bring them back to the capitol.

And Democrats just let them get away with it. Shameful. https://twitter.com/LaurenDake/status/1143567669431418881 …

Lauren Dake

@LaurenDake

Sen. President Peter Courtney to Republicans: We do not have the votes for the cap-and-trade bill. #orleg #orpol

Embedded video

Access to Asia

Oil and gas exports have dramatically increased nationwide over the past decade, ever since technological advances turned the U.S. from a top importer of these fuels to a growing exporter.

Energy companies have sought more access to West Coast ports for decades for routes to Asia and Australia. The region’s deep-water ports, railroad and pipeline networks, and proximity to some of the nation’s most productive oil, gas and coal fields make it particularly attractive for export terminals.

In some cases, exporting through the West Coast is the only economically viable option, as longer overland transportation routes would be too costly. Moreover, shorter trips by sea to reach China and other growing Asian markets cut costs.

Yet Western ports do not export as much crude oil as other American coastal areas.

The lack of liquefied natural gas export facilities along the West Coast isn’t due to the industry not trying. Every single export terminal energy companies have proposed has faced significant public opposition that made securing permits hard if not impossible.

Likewise, relatively small volumes of coal are being shipped abroad from ports on the West Coast despite efforts to build new export terminals there.

Energy dominance

With his “energy dominance” policy, Trump has emphasized expanding production and export of fossil fuels and weakening environmental regulations – including those that address climate change.

His administration is siding with energy companies and landlocked states like Wyoming and Colorado angling to ship coal, oil and natural gas mined and drilled within their borders to lucrative and growing Asian markets. Trump issued an April 2019 executive orderthat’s intended to make it harder for states to block big energy projects by using authority they’ve had since 1972 under the Clean Water Act.

At the same time, many local and state governments on the West Coast are on board with demands made by environmental activists for renewable energy development and advocates for more local control over development.

Local supporters of fossil fuel exports point to the positive local effects these facilities can have. Labor unions, county governments, business councils and ports frequently argue that bolstering fossil fuel exports would create jobs, entice investment and increase the tax base.

Opponents argue that transporting, storing, handling and shipping fossil fuels – via railroads, pipelines and ships – endangers nearby communities and contributes to climate change.

They point to oil train derailments, the public health perils of increased diesel fumes and coal dust, and pipeline explosions and leaks. They also highlight the climate implications of shipping fossil fuels abroad that may affect the carbon footprints of other countries, where the fuel would be burned.

These people have maintained a virtual blockade against new export facilities so far. But in our study of this issue,we have found it remains unclear if the federal government will overturn or override local and state decisions to deny permits.

...[doc propsed export]

Mobilization

Public opinion research indicates both support and opposition for fossil fuel export depending on fuel type. Our 2017 national survey showed that about a third of U.S. citizens sampled opposed exporting natural gas, while about half supported it and almost a fifth were undecided. Our forthcoming survey of Washington residents found similar levels of opposition to natural gas exports. We also detected higher rates of disapproval of oil and coal exports, with about half of residents opposing them.

Activists in the Pacific Northwest have established what they call a “thin green line” of resistance against any big new fossil fuel infrastructure. Their protests have contributed to state and local decisions to deny permits, as well as the passage of ordinances and resolutions limiting such development. Cities like Portland, Oregon, have banned these projects altogether.

Tribal governments have actively opposed many of these proposals, too. For example, the Lummi Nation played an essential role in stopping the Gateway Pacific coal terminal proposed for Bellingham, Washington.

Legal fights have ensued. After Washington denied the permit for the Millennium Bulk Terminals coal export proposal, six interior states and several industry groups joined the company in a lawsuit. They allege that the state’s decision violated the Constitution’s commerce clause, which grants Congress – not states – the power to regulate trade.

In some cases, the courts have determined that local bans are not allowed. In others, companies have simply withdrawn proposals, especially after sustained public protests.

Silencing local voices

The administration is pursuing multiple workarounds for expanding fossil fuel export, including a recent proposal to set up export facilities on retired military bases. Energy companies and energy-producing states are trying to capitalize on the fossil-friendly administration.

For example, senators from Texas, Colorado and Montana have encouraged Trump to use his authority under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or the deal that may replace it, to override Washington state’s denial of the coal export permit.

These moves at the federal level appear to be restricting opportunities for public participation in siting decisions, a development we find troubling.

In previous research, we have shown how public hearings on energy projects are critical to the formation of active community groups, who use these opportunities to connect with like-minded individuals.

While one-on-one meetings may seem more efficient and less prone to conflict, they may also stifle important local debates on these issues. And they could potentially push activists toward more confrontational tactics because they do not feel their voices are adequately heard through official channels.

In addition, some companies have used existing permits and zoning to start handling a different fuel or expand facilities without undergoing environmental review and associated public comment processes.

Despite years of successfully blocking fossil fuel exports from the West Coast, whether the thin green line will hold is far from clear. Its resilience will partly depend on what happens with global fossil fuel markets and the success of export proposals in Canada and Mexico. Its resilience will also depend on how hard the Trump administration is willing to push and how hard the West Coast is willing to push back.

This is an update of an article first published Nov. 28, 2018.

ct win api coc local regs

const local regs maine

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28082018/tar-sands-pipeline-court-ruling-south-portland-ban-public-health-constitutional-big-oil-maine

A federal judge has ruled that the coastal city of South Portland, Maine, did not violate the U.S. Constitution when it passed an ordinance that blocked a local pipeline company from bringing tar sands oil through its port.

For the city of 25,000, the ruling was a surprise victory after years of fighting what felt like an impossible battle against some of the world's biggest oil companies, which lined up to support the Portland Pipe Line Corporation (PPLC).

Provided the ruling survives an appeal, it slams the door on a significant plan to ship Canadian tar sands oil, one of the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet, to the East Coast for export to international markets, and it could offer a guide for other communities hoping to block energy projects.

"For other communities looking at opposing fossil fuel infrastructure, this case is a blueprint for how you should do it," said Patrick Parenteau, an environmental law professor at the Vermont Law School. "It's a strong opinion, and it could result in a really significant precedent for local control on petroleum-based industries." The pipeline company's plan involved a 70-year-old pipeline system that currently carries conventional crude oil in the opposite direction, from a tanker facility in South Portland to refineries in Montreal. After Canada's tar sands oil boom crippled the market for oil travelling from Maine to Montreal, PPLC saw its business dwindle.

A plan to reverse the flow and provide a route for tar sands oil to reach global markets through the port at South Portland represented a golden egg for the company—a way to redefine its business model, provide jobs and become a linchpin for oil exports.

But it also would have come at a steep price, the grassroots group Protect South Portland argued.

The plan called for the construction of a pair of 70-foot-high smokestacks next to a beloved waterfront park to burn off volatile compounds from the tar sands oil before it could be loaded into tankers. Concerns about emissions from those smokestacks led to the creation of the so-called Clear Skies Ordinance, which banned the bulk loading of crude oil onto tankers.

When the City Council passed the ordinance in 2014, it sought to protect South Portland citizens from air pollution. The ordinance's foundation lay in Maine's "home rule authority," a stipulation of thestate Constitution that allows municipalities to create regulations that go beyond state rules to protect public health and welfare.

[map]

The pipeline company filed its lawsuit in 2015, and a lengthy, expensive legal battle ensued. Late last year, a federal district court judge threw out all but one of the industry's claims against the city, but left open the key question of whether the ordinance violated the Constitution.

In his 92-page decision issued on Friday, Judge John A Woodcock, Jr., found it did not.

The decision "gives communities a powerful tool," said Ken Rumelt, a Vermont Law School professor who led students at its environmental law clinic in advising groups involved in the case. "It says that a community, assuming there isno state law preempting what they're trying to do, can say no, we don't want to suffer these impacts."

A Tale of Two Portlands

The Maine decision echoes one issued earlier this month in the other Portland—Oregon.

There, a group of industry and business groups had sued over a 2016 ordinance that banned the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure. As in Maine, the petitioners argued that the ordinance violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which regulates commerce with foreign nations, among states and with Native American tribes.

After years of volleying through the courts, the Oregon Supreme Court opted not to hear a challenge to the ordinance.

"The two Portlands are setting the stage for lots of other communities in between the two coasts," said Sean Mahoney of the Conservation Law Foundation, who has advised South Portland. "The lesson is that communities have the right and the obligation to protect the public health of the people who live in them, whether that is from air pollution or water pollution or lead in drinking water or housing."

As Goes Maine?

In the Maine case, the local pipeline company enlisted powerful allies as it opposed the ordinance. The American Petroleum Institute, whose members include most major oil and gas companies, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat a 2013 ballot measure that would have blocked the project. After the ordinance was passed, API and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce both supported PPLC in its lawsuit.

Josh Axelrod, a policy analyst with Natural Resources Defense Council, said that support laid bare just how much the industry wanted to use the PPLC pipelines to gain access to the East Coast for exporting tar sands. "This is a huge win to stop that from happening," he said.

One by one, viable options to export the tar sands via pipeline have run into challenges. TransCanada abandoned its plans for the Energy East Pipeline in 2017, announcing it was uneconomical. Earlier this month, a federal judge ordered a new environmental review of the Keystone XL project. And later this week, a Canadian court will ruleon whether First Nations groups were adequately consulted in the plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline—a decision that could delay or cancel the plans for that pipeline.

These challenges "put some upper limit on where the industry would like to go," Axelrod said. "Back almost 10 years ago, they would talk about growing to 9 million barrels of oil per day of [tar sands] production. Their most optimistic projections now are less than 4.5 million barrels of oil per day."

And that's premised on the construction of at least two new pipelines, Axelrod said—a prospect that's seeming less likely given the opposition and court rulings.

'Committed Citizens Can Change the World'

The South Portland case will most likely be appealed. But for now, the decision is being met with surprise, and relief.

Mayor Linda Cohen praised the ruling in a written statement, saying, "Faced with the prospect of hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil being loaded onto marine tank vessels in the City and threatening the health of the residents and preventing redevelopment of the waterfront, the City Council prohibited this new activity. We are pleased that the Court upheld the ordinance."

Rachel Burger, the co-founder and president of Protect South Portland, said she was overjoyed. "I didn't count on this happening, necessarily. I thought the ruling was more likely to be negative," she said. "I'm just amazed that a group of people can do something like this."

Thinking back on years of canvassing, fundraisers, marches and grassroots organizing, Burger said she keeps coming back to a Margaret Mead quote: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

PUBLISHED UNDER:

OIL/TAR SANDS

REGULATION

ACTIVISM

GOODMAN: Kierán Suckling, we are speaking to you in Portland, Oregon. In Yosemite right now, the national park, thousands of people are being evacuated because of terrible wildfires. I want to ask you about something else that happened in Oregon. Earlier this month, Donald Trump pardoned Dwight Hammond and his son Steven Hammond, two Oregon cattle ranchers who were convicted in 2012 of committing arson on federal lands. Prosecutors say the Hammonds set the fires to cover up their illegal deer poaching. Their conviction sparked armed right-wing militiamen, led by Ammon Bundy, to take over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, provoking a 41-day armed standoff in 2016. Can you comment on this and what message President Trump was sending with this, these pardons?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: This is very disturbing, because the Hammonds not only were arsonists who set fire to our public lands, threatening firefighters who were out there, but have a long history of threatening to kill federal officials. And when the Bundy militia group came up to support them when they were prosecuted, they came up there with the message of not just let’s help the Hammonds, but let’s give all of America’s public lands away to industry and state groups.

And so, when Trump is pardoning these people, he’s really signaling—sending a signal to this right-wing base to say, “Hey, anti-government extremism, threats of violence against those you don’t like, against the government, are acceptable.” They’re encouraged. And, in fact, earlier, when he pardoned Joe Arpaio, another very controversial action, well, it turns out Joe Arpaio, Sheriff Joe, was also a supporter of this Bundy group and this radical, violent agenda. And I think it goes along with Trump gearing up this violent undercurrent in America to support him and to drive fear into others.

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-forest-ecosystem-2564720055.html

Climate Change Threatens Unique West Coast Forest Region

The Klamath is a unique region in Northern California and Southwest Oregon. In addition to being a haven for biodiversity— hosting plants that only live in its mountainous landscape and 29 different species of conifers—it also stores carbon in its diverse array of tall trees.

But those iconic trees, and their carbon-storing power, are under threat from climate change, a study published Monday in Scientific Reports found.

Using a landscape simulation model, researchers at Harvard University, Portland State University and the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute looked at five different potential climate change scenarios and found that, even under a continuation of current climate conditions, up to one third of the conifer landscape could be replaced by less-carbon-absorbing shrubs and hardwood this century.

This change in vegetation is largely driven by the impact of climate change on wildfires. Conifers are adapted to withstand fires, but climate change reduces the time between fires, called the "fire rotation period," and increases their size and severity.

Researchers found that every climate change scenario also increased drought in the summers, which made it harder for all plant species to re-establish themselves after fires. This effect was worse for conifers, whose ability to regrow decreased from 26 to 39 percent depending on the climate scenario, while shrubs declined by 7 to 20 percent.

"If the fire-free interval is too short or if the growing conditions are too dry, the shrubs can persist indefinitely, and the iconic conifers are squeezed out," study co-author and Harvard senior ecologist Jonathan Thompson said in a Harvard press release published by Phys.org.

While the conifer-dominated area was reduced even under current climate conditions, that area further decreased in the climate change scenarios.

"As the climate continues to warm, big severe wildfires will be more frequent, and the dry conditions that follow will increasingly favor shrubs over conifers. The combination will mean less of the conifer forest that make the Klamath so distinct," Thompson said.

The findings corresponded with other studies that have observed larger fires in Western forests due to climate change. The two warmest climate scenarios predicted forest fires that would break the record for largest fire in the area, currently held by the Biscuit Fire of 2002.

The researchers hypothesized that vegetation shifted from conifers to shrubs even under current climate conditions in part because climate change has already begun and in part because of 20th-century fire suppression that gave conifers an advantage.

...

GOV. KATE BROWN: Absolutely. What can I—what can I think otherwise? Is it about the governor wanting to run for the U.S. Senate? Or is it about President Trump wanting to protect Mar-a-Lago? I don’t know the answer to that, because Secretary Zinke hasn’t returned our calls. … There was absolutely no input from governors, coastal governors. We had no clue that this was coming, and we had no opportunity to express our outrage. We are outraged. This is absolutely unacceptable. There has been no drilling off the Pacific Coast for three decades.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Oregon Democratic Governor Kate Brown. Today,Roy Cooper, the governor of North Carolina, just went ballistic. He said, “We jut into the ocean.” He said, “Many of our towns and cities have already said they do not want this offshore drilling,” that the BP oil spill costs dwarf their annual budget. Professor Subhankar Banerjee, is this actually an opening right now, Zinke exempting Florida? Because of the outcry of not only Democratic governors, like Brown and Cooper, you’re talking about the governors of New Hampshire, of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia are enraged.

[http://www.alternet.org/animal-rights/critically-endangered-california-condors-oregons-hunters-may-pose-gravest-threat For Critically Endangered California Condors, Oregon's Hunters May Pose the Gravest Threat] 9/17 see [https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/Category:Wildlife#Specific_Species Wildlife].

===

12/16

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/business/economy/portland-oregon-tax-executive-pay.html?_r=0

Moving to address income inequality on a local level, the City Council in Portland, Ore., voted on Wednesday to impose a surtax on companies whose chief executives earn more than 100 times the median pay of their rank-and-file workers.

The surcharge, which Portland officials said is the first in the nation linked to chief executives’ pay, would be added to the city’s business tax for those companies that exceed the pay threshold. Currently, roughly 550 companies that generate significant income on sales in Portland pay the business tax.

Under the new rule, companies must pay an additional 10 percent in taxes if their chief executives receive compensation greater than 100 times the median pay of all their employees. Companies with pay ratios greater than 250 times the median will face a 25 percent surcharge.

The tax will take effect next year, after the Securities and Exchange Commission begins to require public companies to calculate and disclose how their chief executives’ compensation compares with their workers’ median pay. The S.E.C. rule was required under the Dodd-Frank legislation enacted in 2010.

Portland’s executive-pay surcharge will be levied as a percentage of what a company owes on the city’s so-called business license tax, which has been in place since the 1970s. City officials estimated that the new tax would generate $2.5 million to $3.5 million a year for the city’s general fund, which pays for basic public services such as housing and police and firefighter salaries.

Criticism of how much chief executives are paid has risen in recent years as their compensation has grown substantially. In 2015, the median compensation for the 200 highest-paid executives at public companies in the United States was $19.3 million, up from $9.6 million five years earlier.

Comparing such compensation with how much lower-level employees earn is likely to show a very wide gulf. A 2014 study by Alyssa Davis and Lawrence Mishel at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal-leaning advocacy group in Washington, found that chief executive pay compared with the earnings of average workers had surged from a multiple of 20 in 1965 to almost 300 in 2013.

Thomas Piketty, a professor at the Paris School of Economics and an authority on income inequality who wrote “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” said he favored the Portland tax as a first step.

“This is certainly part of the solution,” Mr. Piketty wrote in an email, “but the tax surcharge needs to be large enough; the threshold ‘100 times’ should be substantially lowered.”

Taxing companies that dole out outsize executive pay in Portland was the idea of Steve Novick, a former environmental lawyer who has been a Portland city commissioner since January 2013.

“When I first read about the idea of applying a higher tax rate to companies with extreme ratios of C.E.O. pay to typical worker pay, I thought it was a fascinating idea,” Mr. Novick, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview. “It was the closest thing I’d seen to a tax on inequality itself.”

...

Win:

OR LNG sierra club

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/12/ferc-denies-jordan-cove-lng/

natrev bs

ANDREW STUTTAFORD May 21, 2016 5:45 PM From the Portland Tribune:

In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools. “Eliminating doubt”. Unanimously, naturally. To teach the science of climate change is, of course, fine. To teach the cult of climate change is not. To quote Richard Feynman, a man who knew a bit about what being a scientist involved: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt”. Back to the Portland Tribune: The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and staff to develop an implementation plan for “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice in all Portland Public Schools. Get rid of the wrong books. Teach “climate justice”. Sounds like the spirit of free inquiry and open debate is alive and well in Portland. Bill Bigelow, a former PPS teacher and current curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools, a magazine devoted to education issues, worked with 350PDX and other environmental groups to present the resolution. Rethinking Schools looks to me like a magazine of the hard left (but perhaps that’s just me, check out its website and judge for yourself). Its curriculum editor is not, I would think, the most convincing advocate of objectivity in the classroom… Bigelow is also the co-author of a textbook on environmental education, A People’s Curriculum for the Earth. Asked if this resolution will cause the district to buy new textbooks, such as his book, Bigelow said Rethinking Schools is a nonprofit, not a money-maker. OK. Bigelow said the district already has climate-change literacy curriculum, such as at Sunnyside Environmental School, and he wants that knowledge to spread. Set the controls for the heart of Sunnyside’s website, and discover this: Our school community and students are taught to critically examine dominant culture norms, seek multiple perspectives and counter stories… Some doubts are more equal than others, it seem

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435701/climate-change-heating-fahrenheit-451

Oregon makes voter reg automatic/opt out

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/16/oregon_automatic_dmv_voter_registration_passes.html

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/11/kids-sue-climate-change/

Courtrooms usually aren’t jovial places, but with 21 youth plaintiffs and two busloads of supporting junior high-school students in tow, the air in the U.S. District Courthouse here on Wednesday felt more field trip than federal court.

:{ :(style="max-width:750px;max-height:422px"):}:

The occasion for the youthful energy was a hearing on a complaint filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, aged 8 – 19, by Oregon nonprofit Our Children’s Trust. The kids’ lawyers assert that their clients and the younger generation as a whole, have been deprived of key rights by their own government. By failing to act on climate change, they argue, the U.S. government—including President Obama and a baker’s dozen federal agencies—has valued its own generation more than future generations, who will bear a greater burden with respect to the climate crisis.

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and Wednesday’s hearing had a federal judge considering that motion. The youth plaintiffs’ counsel sparred with government lawyers as well as attorneys representing fossil fuel interests. This kind of case might sound, well, juvenile, but trade groups with ties to the oil and gas lobby—the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the National Association of Manufacturers—were concerned enough about it that they joined as co-defendants in November of last year. Now, the Oregon U.S. District Court will decide whether or not the complaint will proceed to trial.

Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh Martinez, a 15-year-old indigenous activist and a plaintiff on the case, summed up the kids’ perspective at a press conference after the hearing. “We are valuing our futures over profits,” he said. “We are valuing this planet over corporate greed.”

:{ :(style="max-width:750px;max-height:500px"):}:

This isn’t the first time Our Children’s Trust has brought forth a youth climate lawsuit. Indeed, the group has at one time or another filed suit in all 50 states and currently has cases pending in five states. Back in November, in a case brought by a coalition of Seattle teenagers, a Washington judge ruled that the state was constitutionally obligated to protect its natural resources “for the common benefit of the people of the State”—a notable win for the young plaintiffs—but she did not go so far as to rule that the state’s carbon emissions-limiting standards in question needed to adhere to the “best available science.” A 2011 suit, which the youth plaintiffs ended up losing, also targeted the federal government for failing to keep the atmosphere safe for future generations. It perhaps goes without saying that these types of complaints are incredible long shots.

d to questions at a press conference after their hearing in Eugene, Oregon. Photo credit: Clayton Aldern / Grist

Julia Olson, a lawyer with Wild Earth Advocates and Our Children’s Trust who argued the plaintiffs’ case on Wednesday, is optimistic about the outcome of this complaint, though. “I believe in our Constitution and I think it can work to address even the most systemic, intractable problem of our generation,” she told me.

The complaint alleges violation of the kids’ Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. By failing to act on climate change, it argues, the government discriminates against youth as a class. Without access to a healthy climate, they’re deprived of their fundamental rights to life, liberty and property.

...Significantly, similar legal issues are being considered in a federal lawsuit brought in August 2015 against the federal government by 21 young people from across the U.S. and Dr. James Hansen as guardian for all future generations, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Just last week in that case, the world’s largest fossil fuel industry representatives filed a request to intervene to protect their commercial economic interests in fossil fuel exploitation and to thwart the youth’s request for protection of their fundamental constitutional rights. The proposed intervenors, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (representing members ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Koch Industries and virtually all other major refiners and petrochemical manufacturers), the American Petroleum Institute (representing 625 oil and natural gas companies) and the National Association of Manufacturers, called the youth’s case “a direct threat to [their] businesses.”...

http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/20/stem-tide-climate-change/

...

Two teenagers from Eugene, Oregon appealed Judge Karsten Rasmussen’s adverse decision yesterday to their climate change lawsuit.In its decision, the court ruled that the state of Oregon has no responsibility to preserve Oregon’s iconic rivers and beaches, fish, wildlife, shorelands or the atmosphere for future generations.

Without addressing any of the evidence presented in expert declarations supporting the youth, including statements from the state’s own scientists, the court questioned “whether the atmosphere is a ‘natural resource’ at all.” Last year, Judge Rasmussen decision was reversed by the Oregon Court of Appeals in the same case brought by the teens, and plaintiffs Kelsey Juliana and Olivia Chernaik are hopeful that the most recent decision will be overturned again.

Juliana and Chernaik’s appeal comes less than two weeks after two landmark climate wins in the courts. On June 23, Washington state youth, who along with Juliana and Chernaik are part of a global youth-driven legal campaign, won an unprecedented decision in their climate change lawsuit. Hours later, after the win in Washington, the Dutch Urgenda Foundation and hundreds of Dutch citizens won a climate case that forces the Netherlands government to adopt stringent climate policies.

Back in Oregon, youth aren’t seeing similar victories—yet. The Oregon legislature ends its session this week without passing or even putting to a floor vote Oregon’s Climate Stability and Justice Act (HB 3470), which would have been the most comprehensive climate law in the state.

yahoo news 12/14

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Proponents of an Oregon ballot measure requiring labels on genetically modified foods conceded defeat Thursday after a judge ruled against them and an automatic recount appeared unlikely to sway the outcome.

The Yes on 92 campaign said there are no legal options remaining that could lead them to victory.

"The labeling movement will continue to grow," the campaign said in a statement. "We draw strength from the fact that we came so achingly close to winning this vote, despite being outspent by more than $12 million."

Measure 92 was defeated by just 812 votes out of 1.5 million, triggering an automatic recount. The second tally showed a net shift of 25 votes against the initiative. The results cover all 36 counties but have not yet been certified.

The proponents said they would continue working toward a labeling requirement for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, but stopped short of promising a 2016 campaign.

The initiative would have required manufacturers, retailers and suppliers to label raw or packaged foods produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering.

Oregon is the fourth state in the West to oppose a labeling requirement for genetically modified foods, but Oregon came closer than efforts in California, Colorado and Washington."After looking at the facts about Measure 92, Oregon voters decided that it rightly deserved a no vote," Pat McCormick, a spokesman for the No on 92 Coalition, said in a statement.

Congress could step into the debate next year. A congressional hearing Wednesday previewed Republican efforts to push federal legislation that would override state laws mandating labels

Statehouse Races: Oregon & Washington

Keep in mind that the NextGen Climate Action Committee is less than four years old. It was sparked in 2010, when Tom Steyer teamed up with former Secretary of State George Schultz to defeat California’s Proposition 23, a ballot initiative designed to undercut California’s landmark greenhouse gas reduction legislation. In its short history, the PAC has shown a keen eye for local politics. For example, last year Steyer’s resources helped influence the outcome of the Whatcom, County (Washington State) supervisors race. Whatcom County? you may be wondering. Yes, Whatcom County … because a major coal export terminal is planned for the area.

NextGen and others environmental PACs are keeping their eye on less glamorous races by making investments in several key campaigns that could determine the balance of power in the Oregon and Washington Statehouses. Both of these Pacific Northwest states have progressive and environment-friendly governors. But their climate agendas have been frustrated by the legislatures. Green groups want to change that by locking in environmentally minded majorities in Salem and Olympia. NextGen has put at least $1 million into its Washington PAC.

Weiss from the League of Conservation Voters said: “Those state legislatures are only a couple of votes away from having a pro-climate action majority. Currently they do not. If we can win a couple of more seats, then Governor Jay Inslee [Democrat from Washington] and Governor [John] Kitzhaber [Democrat from Oregon] can pass pro- climate action legislation. In Oregon in the last legislative session, a proposal for a low carbon fuel standard, to reduce carbon pollution, failed on a tie vote. If we can pick up two more seats, we can win that.”

State Ballot Initiatives

Voters will be deciding on a raft of initiatives on November 4 that have to do with environmental issues.

California voters will be deciding the fate of a $7.1 billion bond measure that would, if passed, pay for improvements to the state’s drought-strained water infrastructure. Environmental groups are split on the measure, with some saying the bond is just another water giveaway to Big Ag.

New Jersey residents will vote on Public Question 2, which will direct 6 percent of corporate tax revenues to open space preservation.

In Michigan, voters will consider Proposal 1, which organizers with a group called Keep Michigan Wolves Protected put on the ballot to overturn the state’s game rules allowing for wolf hunting. But because the measure has since been superseded by legislative action, this is mostly a symbolic measure – and, to make the issue more complicated, wolf supporters are urging a “No” vote to reject the wolf-hunting law. Voters in Maine will have the opportunity, via Question 1, to put restrictions on some bear hunting practices.

Up in Alaska, voters will be deciding Measure 4, the Bristol Bay Mining Ban. In July the US EPA proposed a set of mining restrictions that would all but prohibit mining in the bay, one of the richest salmon fisheries in the world. But Measure 4 is still an important race since it will force Alaskans to make a symbolic decision about whether they want to continue with their extraction-based economy or pursue enterprises, like fishing, that can be more sustainable.

By far the most closely watched – and fiercely contested – state initiatives are the ballot measures in Colorado (Proposition 105) and Oregon (Measure 92) to mandate the labeling of food products containing genetically modified ingredients. In 2012 voters in California rejected a GM labeling initiative, as did voters in Washington last year, and the campaigns in Colorado and Oregon feel like déjà vu all over again. Once more, sustainable food activists are seeking to tap into the overwhelming – and bi-partisan – numbers of people who say they want more transparency in the food system. And once more the major food processors are dumping huge amounts of cash into the final weeks of the campaign. In Colorado, the No on 105 Coalition has raised $9.7 million to defeat the GM labeling initiative. At least measured by dollars (how else to gauge campaign success in the world’s oldest democracy?) the fight in Oregon is somewhat more evenly matched. There, labeling opponents have raised about $5.7 million, while labeling proponents have collected about $3.7 million, according to the most recent figures.

It’s hard to know what to make of the GM food opponents’ repeated strategy. Either it’s an example of impressive persistence (“if at first you don’t succeed, try again”) or a case of bullheaded obstinacy (“the definition of insanity is going the same thing and expecting a different outcome”). Maybe, as Josh Harkinson suggests at Mother Jones, this will be the year that GM food labeling hits a tipping point. We’ll find out on November 4.

Oregon Rejects Key Permit for Coal Export Terminal 8/14

The state of Oregon stood up to dirty coal exports today by denying a key dock-building permit. This denial is...http://ecowatch.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=214ab5fbb3f6015d74ffab4ec&id=bbcac29198&e=c2e8fdabfa

ORE sellout

http://www.prwatch.org/node/12486

Even though the state of Oregon enacted a law to override the ability of localities to regulate their own food systems, local ballot measures to ban GMO crops passed overwhelmingly in Jackson and Josephine Counties on May 20, according to news reports. "We fought the most powerful and influential chemical companies in the world and we won," Elise Higley, a local farmer with the anti-GMO group Our Family Farms Coalition, told The Oregonian.The Progressive magazine tells the backstory below and reveals that the preemption measure shares language with an ALEC model bill.

When the headline said that Oregon’s Democratic governor, John Kitzhaber, had signed into law a corporate-backed bill overriding local counties’ ability to regulate their own food systems, Lisa Arkin was shocked.

“I can viscerally remember the day I looked at the headline,” she says. “It was such a deep feeling of disgust and disbelief. I couldn’t believe that any amount of money from outside corporations could convince our elected leaders in Oregon to abandon the democratic process in that way.”

A former physician, Governor Kitzhaber has fought to expand access to health care his entire career. Even when resistance threatened his efforts, he unapologetically pushed forth Oregon's heath exchange marketplace. Since then, he's encouraged other governors to do the same. He has also increased funding for public education, and organized conservation efforts like the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds to keep Oregon environmentally friendly. In 2010, Oregonians elected him for an unprecedented third term as governor.

TAL 5/13 4 state climatologists fired for supporting (or opposing?) agw oregon, va, delaware and __

Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.

"In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.

"It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way."

Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.

"There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats."

CEI, which previously listed Mr. Legates as an "adjunct scholar," has published multiple reports questioning the science behind global-warming theories and has been criticized for accepting donations from companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp.

Mr. O'Keefe said his organization doesn't deny the existence of global warming but questions the methods used by individuals and groups advocating for new government restrictions to combat the phenomenon.

"We have never said that global warming isn't real," Mr. O'Keefe said. "No self-respecting think tank would accept money to support preconceived notions. We make sure what we are saying is both scientifically and analytically defensible."

In an interview with local NBC affiliate KGW-TV, Mr. Kulongoski, a Democrat, said he hopes to take away Mr. Taylor's job title because his views do not mesh with the political opinions of most lawmakers in Oregon, including the governor.

"He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist," Mr. Kulongoski said. "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'This is the state position on this.' "

Mr. Taylor was appointed to the position in 1991, when Oregon's legislature created a state climate office at the college. Mr. Kulongoski wants to change the position to a governor-appointed one. State Sen. Brad Avakian, a Democrat, is sponsoring a bill supporting such a move. Wa times