OLCV Talk

What do you believe in?

I believe that most decisions we make whether it’s as individuals or together as a society is based on the belief that we are doing something that is good either for ourselves or our neighbors.

So what exactly do you believe when you decided to switch from bottled water to a Brita filter? Maybe you were motivated by something other than you pocketbook/wallet when you decided to leave your car at home and walk/bike/take public transit to work.

Personally, I am afraid that if I don’t do my part today, years from now, when my children ask me what I did to help protect our planet – and I say nothing… their eyes will fill with tears and disappointment. Life can be hard enough.

When I ride my bike or choose produce that was grown local, bring my own bag to carry home my groceries, turn the faucet of when I brush my teeth, these are all simple decisions I make for something I believe in: a beautifl healthy planet for everyone to enjoy now and far into the future.

So what about you? Why do you do what you do?
What have you changed to do your part to protect our planet? Have you ever volunteered?
What do you believe in?


Discuss below.

LCV endorses Obama

Okay, no shocker here.

But here's some background on why electing Obama is so critically important to protecting the planet.

http://lcv.org/obama/

Oregon Chases the Gore Chalenge

Last Thursday, Al Gore challenged the nation to get to 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2018.

Today, we learn that Oregon and Washington are planning to quadruple our wind power. From The Oregonian:

Utilities and independent developers are poised to more than quadruple the amount of wind power in the Northwest, a huge increase that underscores the region's push for renewable energy.

"It's phenomenal," said Elliot Mainzer, a transmission manager with the federal Bonneville Power Administration. "It's more than we expected."

Highlights of Gore's speech:

Washington Lawmakers: No Money for the CRC

While local governments continue to sign off on putting a huge new I-5 bridge between Vancouver and Portland on their credit cards, there's a glaring problem: the money to pay the bill.

With a currently estimated $4.2 billion cost, the bridge is the most expensive public works project in the region's history. Tolls can only pay a portion of the cost, and the rest will have to be covered by federal, state, and local sources.

But Washington lawmakers are saying the project isn't at the top of their priority list. As the project mainly benefits Washington-based commuters, that's a major problem.

Leaders of Washington's House Transportation Committee are focused instead on two other projects - an expansion of SR520, and a replacement of Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct. From the Portland Business Journal article:

"The bottom line is there are no funds available for construction of the Columbia River Crossing," said [Vancouver, WA Senator Don] Benton, a project opponent. "We've almost completely tapped out our resources just on the project studies alone." ...  Oregon lawmakers have generally supported the bridge, although they've broached few concrete funding solutions.

EPA Blasts CRC's Failure to Look at Sprawl and Air, Water Pollution

From today's Oregonian:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds that [Columbia River] bridge planners did not adequately examine the potential for a [new I-5] bridge to induce sprawl, increase pollution and contaminate an aquifer that supplies Vancouver and Clark County's drinking water.

Bridge planners also didn't look at air pollution impacts throughout North Portland, especially the impacts on elderly and poor and racial minorities who live nearby.

Despite the lack of credible data on the impacts of a 12-lane bridge, the Portland City Council voted to support the project on Wednesday, over the objections of environmental leaders from Environment Oregon, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Audubon Society of Portland, and the Coalition for a Livable Future, as well as over 1000 local residents who submitted testimony against the bridge.

I raised concerns about the lack of data in a piece I wrote for the BlueOregon blog on Tuesday.

Eastern Oregon Ag Could Lose Out to Zebra (Mussles)

Northeastern Oregon's Wallowa Lake is a gem. People travel from all over the state to enjoy the lake -- by hiking, fishing, and relaxing around it.

Wallowa County officials are worried, however, that zebra and quagga mussels could be introduced to the lake, thereby destroying sportfishing, as well as clogging up irrigation pipes across the county. About 38,000 acres of irrigated hay, wheat, and barley fields are at risk.

The solution is to create check stations to examine boats and trailers entering the area for mussles brought from infested waterways, but there isn't currently enough county money to fund such stations. Many fish groups, including Trout Unlimited and the Native Fish Society, members of the Oregon Conservaiton Network, are working to find legislative funding to protect Oregon's waterways from the invaders.

More from The Oregonian.

Fun vs. Power: Does it have to be a choice?

OLCV’s new Legislative Affairs Director, Evan Manvel, coordinates the Oregon Conservation Network (OCN), a consortium of environmental groups who work to pass laws to protect Oregon’s air, water, and land. The OCN is currently developing its priorities for the 2009 Legislative session. Here is Evan’s take on the process:

"Day-long meetings. Seemingly unending discussions. Coordinating the efforts of fifty different environmental organizations, each with its own mission, from all across Oregon. Finding a way to reach common agreement on shared priorities.

Perhaps “fun” is not the first word I would use to describe the Oregon Conservation Network. But here’s a word I would use: Power."

Back in the mid-1990s, when OCN was first formed, I was working at the Corvallis Environmental Center. After watching us lose battle after battle in the state Legislature, I was thrilled by the idea of a unified environmental movement working together.

For several legislative sessions, OCN organized lobby days and distributed action alerts to help build a groundswell of support for good bills. But it wasn’t enough. In 2005, OCN agreed on a set of shared environmental priorities in the Legislature and hired a full-time lobbyist to work on behalf of these priorities. Since then, our effectiveness has grown dramatically.

During the 2007 session, thanks to our efforts and strong legislative leadership, all of our Priorities for a Healthy Oregon passed, including a progressive renewable energy standard requiring Oregon to get 25% of our power from renewable sources by 2025, and bills requiring computers and televisions to be recycled, and to reduce toxic pollution in the Willamette River. And we helped get a fix of the land-use debacle Measure 37 to the voters, which (as Measure 49) passed last fall, cutting unchecked sprawl by 90%.

And now, once again, we’re having those big meetings and long discussions, developing an ambitious agenda for the 2009 session that will take on big problems. While our opponents are regrouping and learning to coordinate their efforts, we have the combined knowledge and skills of fifty organizations, the power of our grassroots membership, and a unified environmental lobby.

United, as a movement, we can make great strides to protect Oregon’s natural heritage for generations to come.

And that, my friends, is fun.

Oregon Guv says, "We're a green state"

"We're a green state," Kulongoski says. "There's a mindset here, a culture that believes you can have both a quality of life and a sound economy."

Governor Kulongoski - that is music to my ears.

This November 4, let's show the rest of the country that we are indeed a green state.
Vote for the candidates that protect what we care about most: Oregon.

You can find out how Oregon's Representatives and Senators vote on the environment at www.olcv.org or learn more about your U.S. Representatives and Senators at www.lcv.org.

To find out why Kulongoski is talking about what color Oregon is - read the article from today's Oregonian.

Astonished. Flabbergasted.

Those were the first two words that came to mind in reading Sunday’s Oregonian article detailing how the traffic analysis for the proposed new “Columbia River Crossing” I-5 Bridge ignored the growth easier highway access to Clark County would induce. As one expert puts it, that’s “flat out wrong.”

The Oregonian has learned that traffic forecasters involved in planning a new bridge, projected to cost $4.2 billion, were told to assume a new 12-lane bridge would not trigger any more growth than if the current bridge were simply left in place. Yet a 12-lane bridge would handle 40 percent more cars during afternoon rush hour, according to the forecasters' calculations.

"In that scenario, it is likely that the congestion and pollution will be higher than bridge planners have forecast. And the higher-capacity bridge could move the I-5 bottleneck southward, closer to central Portland, where the freeway is chronically congested."

Given what we now know, all the analysis supposedly showing a new $4.2 billion bridge with 12 lanes would reduce congestion are poppycock. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. If you make ridiculous assumptions, then your analysis is ridiculous.

And as assumptions goes, assuming that building all the new lanes won’t affect how much growth in jobs and housing occurs in Clark County is very ridiculous.

We already knew the analysis was flawed because it was based on traffic patterns from gas at less than $3/gallon, yet commuting patterns are already changing, questioning the need for such a large bridge.

And we knew it was flawed because it failed to take into account the necessity of building a project that doesn’t bust the region’s goals for reducing global warming pollution.

And it was flawed because it analyzes congestion in just one Portland bottleneck, not taking into account that the huge price tag means other urgent transportation needs would be unfunded.

It’s time to look at more reasonable alternatives that ask what type of transportation and land use investments should the region make in the world of $4/gas and global warming. How would a Columbia River Crossing fit in? The Coalition for a Livable Future has some ideas.

Friday Car Talk Puzzlah: Should We Scrap Miles Per Gallon Ratings?

It sounds like a car talk puzzlah: If Joe wanted to save gas and had the choice between upgrading his 10-miles-per-gallon car to a 20-miles-per-gallon car, or his wife's 25-miles-per-gallon car to a 50-miles-per-gallon car, which should he choose (presuming they both drove the same number of miles)?

If you're like most people, or like Joe's wife more than Joe, you'd choose the latter. But because miles-per-gallon isn't a linear relationship, the right answer is the former. Which leads to a recommendation to rethink how we present fuel efficiency numbers, as GPM (or gallons per ten thousand miles) rather than MPG.

Read the article in New Scientist

Or watch the video below: