I hate to see Stenchy getting drawn into the Internet. I hope you're monitoring him a little.

Got this from Charlie:

"But these are still tough times, and we need a leader willing to focus the city government back on basic services: It’s time to get the right things done for less – providing reliable services for every neighborhood like paved roads, filled potholes, stable schools, clean and well-kept parks, and lower sewer and water rates."

I think he is doing some polling that tells him that the citizens might be more concerned about paving streets and filling potholes. Verus the sustainability downward spiral that has been rammed down our throats the past decade.

People are getting pretty angry over the wasted funds continually spent in the name of green this or green that. Subsidies and grant monies poured forward, public monies thrown away, with no rewards ever coming at the end. Folks are getting the picture.

Driving much of it in Portland of course are decision makers wanting to be the prettiest and greenest little city on earth. Other motivators across the nation, including outright corruption, have become more apparent and are more disturbing. The backlash should effectively slow efforts just enough to severely hamper the progress for new energy resources.

I would love to see a local government elected who would just stop for a minute, pull some folks together, and prioritize. In the bigger picture how about we reward businesses/individuals with creating solutions after (and only after) they actually do something. Think that might motivate a few old fashioned American innovators?

The Oregonian is reporting that Sam's "Portland Plan," the list of unattainable goals they recently released, cost us about $3 million to create.

One can only imagine how many potholes we could fill or how many teachers, police officers, or fire fighters we could employ with all the money we spend on our cadre of professional daydreamers.

It was a good thing I'd finished my coffee, or it would have been spewed across the laptop!

I think there is also a question of how much of the green initiatives should COP be involved in. Say someone, with their own money, wants to build an eco-roof, a bioswale, use permeable pavers on a replacement driveway - Portland code should at least allow some tests of alternate building. But spending millions on studying, then dictating questionable practices in the name of green? Really, not using plastic bags is going to save the earth?

It's just bizarre trying to understand this obsession on this 'green washing' every aspect of public policy.

The only explanation I can come up with is that the people on the receiving end of all the money by the green washing must connected to the politicians somewhere down the line.

Because there is no other explanation that makes sense.

I don't have any problems with the idea of Portland becoming more sustainable. Really. Of course, I chalk my attitudes up to good old-fashioned Scottish frugality than anything else. I would love to see someone taking advantage of resources that would otherwise be wasted, and using them for unorthodox but valuable purposes. I just also have to ask "If it's such a surefire idea, then why isn't someone stepping in so they can develop the idea and keep the profit for themselves?"

As for the innumerable flyers, Web sites, and other propaganda? I'm just reminded of some of the insane and ridiculous proposals presented over at Kickstarter. In particular, Sam's big plans always remind me of the four hipsters who wanted Kickstarter funding to go on tour across the country, building blanket forts everywhere they went.

Exporting more coal to China will zero out MultCo's savings: whatever we save in a decade, they can burn in a week.

al m,
Agree.
In my opinion, the "green" followers have been propagandized and then used to show support for the agenda, and now the city is spending to try to propagandize the rest of us.
One reason I question this agenda is the hypocrisy going parallel with this,
with those same followers being silent on real sustainable issues in our city.
In the final analysis, follow the money.

The first chart- carbon emissions trends,is also an excellent track of jobs/manufacturing loss.

Cascadia is excited to announce the 2012 Government Confluence, a day-long summit designed to inspire peer-to-peer conversation for those serving in the government sector. Scheduled for May 2nd, 2012, prior to the opening night of Living Future 2012, this is a unique opportunity for exercising collaboration and creativity about creating sustainable communities with your nearby and not-so-nearby regional neighbors. It's also your one-stop shop to learn about the most cutting-edge topics, replicable case studies, and sustainability planning tools.

Come to learn, be inspired, and make lasting connections!

http://cascadiagbc.org/living-future/12/governmentconfluence12

Respect for Mother Nature is a good thing.

But the new green thing is really the old red thing. State planning for how to live your life based on pseudo-science and the desire to limit individualism.

The new kids in City Hall are just willing dupes to a long planned and crafty scheme.

Search for Maurice Strong and IPCC if you want to know when this started and by whom.

"To say that Portland has twisted priorities is quite an understatement."

It's a lot easier to invent and solve 50 year out problems than the actual problems today.

Steve,
So true.
Easier for the politicians not to have to address our actual problems but to keep the people focused on "future dreams!"

Lots of our hard earned dollars are going into the giant green money pit out at Powell Butte, $135 million!
This is not only a storage tank but a blend center, how very "green" will it be to drink the blend of Willamette River in our water?
Is that the grand plan?

...Driving much of it in Portland of course are decision makers wanting to be the prettiest and greenest little city on earth...

The greenest little city that will illustrate to all how green we are to clean up a superfund river to drink. Clean enough to drink?? How much is that going to cost? More needed for the "green" money pit? Cleaning the river is one thing, I simply don't want to drink it.

I wonder what the carbon footprint is to generate all this crap...the purchase and use of computers (electricity from PGE Boardman!), the paper brochures, the distribution costs, the footprint of the employees to commute to work (likely by car), to travel around Portland in their CityFleet vehicles as they refuse to ride TriMet buses, the office space...

In my "kook" circles (Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party and GOP) this local and state green movenment is seen as part of a United Nation's regiment called:

AGENDA 21.

Portland's Neighborhood Associations have become local chapters in pushing the unspoken Agenda 21.

To me, "green" means less jobs as public monies don't nearly goes as far as they could otherwise, and the worker bees have less time available to actually work on productive things as they stand around hours at a time waiting for public transit, looking for parking, separating out food scraps, stopping at the gasoline station more often because of an ethanol induced decrease in mileage, etc.

If it's part of Agenda 21 or not, makes little difference as we are all left trying to resist this impoverishing government led "green" drive together.

"...Al Gore Story...blah blah blah"

Jeeze Jack, I get your not pleased with what you perceive as wasted funds, but seriously you are going to buy into the conservative slander and legitimize disingenuous talking points put forth by cynical energy companies. What's next nukes? You're better than that. The globe doesn't give a damn if anyone "believes" if it is warming or cooling, but every measurement we have indicates it is, and nearly every smart person who has looked into makes the obvious connection. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at all the billions of vehicles around the globe spewing long buried co2 to make the connection with man's actions. Just someone who has walked into a greenhouse and can put two and two together.

I get that powers that be don't care—and those that do are often quite annoying. And yes China's coal and our natural grass greed will do us in anyway, but that doesn't mean this isn't a damn serious issue. We don't need tidal waves or Katrinas to do us in, just a few food systems collapsing or—god forbid—a repeat of the Younger Dryas (13,000 years ago wasn't that long ago).

You may not like these "co2 action plans" as a whole lot of hoopla, but for those of us who are going to watch this unprecedented environmental engineering experiment unfold seeing some folks try and take responsible actions give us a measure of hope. Even if you don't agree, which you've every right, please don't legitimize cynical slander. I, for one, would appreciate it.

nearly every smart person who has looked into makes the obvious connection

I disagree with that. Climate is changing, but it's not 100% certain that human beings have a lot to do with it. There is a majority view, and a substantial minority view.

There's no slander here. All of this is a matter of scientific opinion, not fact.

I give readers the leeway to accept whichever story they find most compelling. Sorry I didn't give your version as gospel.

Thanks for the reply, I must admit it really surprises me. I do hope you investigate further--you are dramatically overestimating the minority. But yes there are other possible causes in addition to the common sense ones. But as your beef is with the city's priorities and not the science, I will drop the issue and just hope you decide to really look into it.

I have "really looked into it" and have stated my conclusion: The case for human-caused climate change is strong but not irrefutable.

Shadrach

"disingenuous talking points put forth by cynical energy companies"

That alone exposes you as a less informed.

But the idea that skpetics just haven't "looked into it" is just over the top backwards.

There is no such "putting forth by cynical energy companies".

Nearly the entire world wide body of work by skeptic's is by volunteers and shoe string budgets from a sprinkling of money from donors having nothing to do with energy or fossil fuel interests.

In stark contrast interests like the Center For American Progress
chew through endless millions distributing AGW talking points to you.

Having studied the issue for many years while engaging some of the most qualified skeptics, there is far more to their refuting of your movement than talking points to consider and none of them are "put forth" as your own talking point claimed.

The abundant refutations over the last 2 years alone has brought many people to scoff at the IPCC and science community that is sticking with their story.

Anyone who genuinely investigates with objectivity will discover the growing case against every element of AGW.

It's worse locally as officials claim they can see changes locally because according to NOAA NW temperatures have been trending down at a hefty pace for many years.

So there has been no NW warming to have caused anything related to AGW.

"Looking into" needed much by you. :)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Shadrach: (is that your real name?) ... every measurement we have indicates it is [warming],
JK: That is not true. If you look at the actual thermometer data as actually recorded (ie: not adjusted by NASA) we are currently cooler than in the 1930s.

Shadrach: and nearly every smart person who has looked into makes the obvious connection.
JK: Yep. Obvious, just look out the window - the sun goes around the earth.

Shadrach: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at all the billions of vehicles around the globe spewing long buried co2 to make the connection with man's actions. Just someone who has walked into a greenhouse and can put two and two together.
JK: Of course that is NOT evidence, only a guess. And a greenhouse works by blocking convection, so your analogy is not apprperiate.

Do you have any actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming? I ask as someone who has looked for a couple of years and can only find ordinary weather events claimed to be unusual, a corelation between CO2 and climate that is WORSE than the correlation between cosmic rays and climate and models that have left out cosmic rays and are not trusted by the top climate scientists per their own emails.

I also found a lot of scare propaganda and outright lies such as Al Gore’s ice cores which actually show climate warms BEFORE CO2 rises and the thoroughly debunked hockey stick. Not to mention the nine outright misrepresentations a court of law verified in Al Gore’s movie

See http://www.sustainableoregon.com/

Thanks
JK

"I have "really looked into it" and have stated my conclusion: The case for human-caused climate change is strong but not irrefutable."

Agreed, Jack. I, too, have "really looked into it" and know of some other very smart people (acclaimed scientists smarter than me anyway) who have "really looked into it." Yes, we are on a cyclical warming cycle, and yes, there is likely some contributory human causation. But beyond that, there is precious little agreement as to what the extent of that causation is (it is NOT 100% or even close), and even more importantly, very little analysis of the aggregate costs to the local, regional, and global economy in the short, medium, and long term of the numerous proposed remedies in careful comparison to the projected benefits of the remedies.

Like so many other really complicated issues these days, there is no black, no whit, and lots of plausible shades of grey all with their own sets of plusses and minuses. In the fact of that, I'm sick and tired of hearing "I'm right, you're evil" - from either side.

Prof,

by "cynical energy companies" I was referring to the Koch brother companies, although you are right that the anti al gore meme has been absorbed by the entirety of the right wing mediasphere. I will concede that many who spout it aren't consciously doing so on behalf of nefarious gas/coal companies. For example I am certain that you have honorable intentions. If you interested here's a good read (but the new yorker will tip my elitist hand, drat), there are lots more out there, probably even a few by CAP.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

CAPs funds are trivial when compared to sheer vast number of right wing policy pushers (Cato institute, Heritage foundation, American Enterprise, etc...) Then of course there is the whole massive mediasphere from Wall Street journal to drudge to faux to all those batshit crazy local right wing radio shows. Its a great echo chamber of misinformation, and trumped up controversies.

Although when you factor in all the scientists who are working on the issue and the resources of their respective institutions you have a point. At the moment those funds vastly outweigh the right wing propagandists. In the rest of the world there is no "debate", even China fully acknowledges the problem and is working harder then anybody but maybe Germany to combat the issue (e.g. Solar). Hell even Abu Dhabi gets it (e.g. Masdar).

Regardless I don't really know you are talking about with AGW talking points. In this case my information comes directly from scientists working on the issue, friends. I happen to have great respect for my friends and for that matter science, it saves lives, built this network you and I are conversing on despite me being a continent away, even put a man on the moon. But yes, scientists have been wrong a few times, and most concede other possibilities to global warming--and can explain those theories far better then you, I or Jack--but they find they evidence looks pretty clear. Occam's razor is a pretty useful tool (but, yes, its not an infallible one).

Look this isn't really my issue, I've made my peace with the experiment that we have collectively embarked on, as unsettling as it is. I've seen Glacier park's disappearing glaciers, and bleached cloral reefs, and drank with scientists who are seriously freaked out about it all. I have accepted that although the worst case is really bad, the median case is probably manageable (at least for the wealthier in the world--which pdxers qualify as) and best case is piece of cake for all of us. Hell there is even an off chance of it being good. See for example this book, even though it is written by a scientist

http://www.amazon.com/The-World-2050-Civilizations-Northern/dp/0525951814

However, I am not an idiot. The whole Global warming "debate" is a smoke screen. There are ulterior motives out there promoting this debate and they do not have your intellectual pursuits at heart. They want to frak your land and make money. If you care more about the romantic journey of a few homegrown skeptics, well suit yourself, professor. Frankly I don't really understand your motives. It seems to me that there are a lot better causes out there. Ones that actually can effect positive change instead of obfuscating or infantilizing an important issue.

I just want to hat tip Ritz, I think that is a very insightful comment that I largely agree with.

For me, I simply appalled at the politicization of science in this country. That is what prompted my comment. We used to be able to agree on facts, without that I think we are screwed. So I will plead guilty that I think one side is promoting a false debate that is disingenuous. And further I find disingenuousness to be evil and corrosive on public discourse.

That was my issue that prompted the comment, not the science per se but its ongoing abuse. Science has become merely another front in a political war of the powerful versus do-gooders who might cost them money. Meanwhile the world grows ugly and the population becomes cynical about the only institutions we have to do anything about it.

It's no use trying to convince the devotees of the new Green religion.
The only solution is to never let them have a role in government and make sure they get into good deprogramming counseling..

Shadrach says, "my information comes directly from scientists working on the issue"
And you have done a horrible job of applying any scrutiny, BS detector or objective study.

I'll wager I have consumed far more of your side's work than you have. However, I retained curiosity while studying it and when that same information from your scientists get's honest scrutiny it fails. Over and over again.
There's been major problems with claims about Himalayan glaciers vanishing, problems with claims of more frequent hurricanes, problems with claims of polar bears threatened, declining snow packs, sea level rise, temperature trends, paleoclimatology, tree ring proxy data and the mountain of observations falsely linked to AGW.

You have really missed the boat if you think all those problems are fabrications by Koch Bros schemes.

That Koch Bros bit is just too silly. How does an entire movement rely on such an absurd farce?

Your entire perception of where the big funding goes is as off as your take on the greater issue.

Maybe you've been drinking too much with freaked out scientists.

No there is not the boogeymen of "ulterior motives out there" trying to undermine good climate science. You have been duped.

The many skilled skeptics are absolutely have intellectually honest pursuits at heart. They are the ones applying genuine and objective review.

Look there isn't an element of AGW you even dare debate. That's why your icons refuse and skeptic welcome debate.

I can easily test your knowledge and credibility with Oregon topics. Are you familiar with any of the claimed Oregon links to AGW?

As for my motivations, you obviously have no idea how many terrible public policies have hitched a ride on this phony movement.
How many bureaucrats at many agencies are busy monitoring everything imaginable to link it to AGW so they can producing nothing but report after report.

Heck behind the many local disputes about light rail and high density schemes are global warming and emissions reductions as their justification.

You should try and grasp just how costly, wasteful and meaningless it all is. None of it will accomplish anything.

Do you honestly read these foolish climate action plans and see them impacting the climate and producing progress?

Actually, Prof, there are numerous tangible benefits to many of the traditional conservation and alternative energy proposals, and not all of them are directly lincked to climate change. Cutting back on the use of fossil fuels prolongs their avilability for when they're really necessary and fosters exploration of new sources of energy that will last more than a century or two. For example, convert home oil heat to cleaner gas or even cleaner electric. In addition, such changes reduce carbon emissions and their related impacts on the global thermal environment (I assume you agree that IS an element of climate change). Big change - maybe, maybe not (not well measured, the point of my prior post), but in aggregate it is a way to be kind to Mother Earth as some of us learned in the 60s. But this recycling kitchen slop or spending millions on propoganda - that's just wasteful.

Back when I was studying engineering we were taught that you had to balance the costs of alternative methods with their expected savings and lifespan.
If the extra costs can't be recouped with the savings during the expected lifespan then you discard the idea. That doesn't mean you don't continue to try and refine the manufacturing process or the design.
But it also doesn't mean you push immature technologies onto the public just to satisfy ones ideological beliefs.

The first chart- carbon emissions trends,is also an excellent track of jobs/manufacturing loss.

The climate action plan actually doesn't specifically address GHG emission mitigation for industrial areas, only residential and commercial. Industrial had the largest decline in GHG while commercial and residential are mostly flat in the metro area. Wonder why?

It should be no surprise that destroying the economy is probably the most effective strategy for reducing GHG emissions, regardless of whether or not it would actually provide environmental benefits. It's pretty much the same with reducing auto driving. A stagnant economy, not crackerbox apartments accessible via light-rail, has pretty much always produced the greatest reductions in personal vehicle travel. So anti-business policies may be the best overall strategy for Portland to achieve its goals, problem is they're not an easy political sell.

In the final analysis, follow the money

Aint it da truth! It's always the money.

Anytime the fix is to raise taxes or fees you should be careful.

Ritz: Actually, Prof, there are numerous tangible benefits to many of the traditional conservation and alternative energy proposals
JK: Care to show us some? AND be sure to include costs.

Ritz: Cutting back on the use of fossil fuels prolongs their avilability for when they're really necessary
JK: What’s the point, we have hundreds of years of supply of coal and natural gas. Probably for oil after fracking really gets going there too. But if we end up short of oil we can make it out of coal or natural gas. Been done for ½ century.

Ritz: and fosters exploration of new sources of energy that will last more than a century or two.
JK: I can’t see how “cutting back on fossil fuels” will “foster exploration of new sources of energy” unless you are thinking of reducing fossil fule use by inflating its price to the point where people are forced to cut back.

Ritz: For example, convert home oil heat to cleaner gas or even cleaner electric.
JK: Your excess exposure to green literature is showing - we have no practical electricity (except nuclear) that is cleaner than that made from methane and using methane directly to heat our homes avoids the over 50% loss in the power plant.

Ritz: In addition, such changes reduce carbon emissions and their related impacts on the global thermal environment (I assume you agree that IS an element of climate change).
JK: Please show us proof that CO2 can cause harmful warming in the real atmosphere where it is mixed with other gases at various temperatures & pressures. Also consider that 95% ofCO2 emissions are natural, not man made.

Thanks
JK

Al Gore is a fat fraud and many of the AGW crowd are only in it for the money. I don't know if global warming is true or not, and I don't think anyone else knows either. The science has now been so tainted with fraud that maybe nobody will ever know what is true.

At every level within government we see self serving actions being taken in the name of sustainability. These actions create more cynical behavior since it is obvious that sustainability is now just a code word for fraud and theft of tax payer money.

However, I am not an idiot.

With all due respect, I disagree.

You speak true, Shadrach, in a deaf realm.

JK: Really, it is black and white, I'm right, and you're evil.

Guess that's it, then . . .

Tensk

Yeah right.
And you Adams and Leonard are the 3 smartest people in Portland.

Is it just a coincidence that ALL of the worst officials in the region and state are drunk on the global warming elixir?

It isn't a coincidence at all. There is a group of politicians who like to scare people by threatening them with global warming. Al Gore was the first one to get rich off of this scam and others are trying hard to follow in his footsteps. This is just a play on the Jesse Jackson race card extortion scheme which itself is just a twist on various other extortion scams used by politicians throughout history.

Sam is just the local guy who throws down the AGW card whenever he wants something. If you use plastic bags, or don't rake your leaves, or don't recycle your food, etc. you're part of AGW according to Sam.

It is a fraud and many people have figured it out. Not everyone obviously, some people still run and hide under the table when Sam declares a GW alert.

It's worth noting that CO2 follows, rather than preceeds, warming. I think Mr. Karlock mentioned that somewhere, but still.

What we can say with certainty is that the main greenhouse gases are water vapor and methane - not CO2.

So greenies push for hydrogen fuel cell cars because - why? Oh, right: because the only emission produced at the tailpipe is harmless water vapor! Great thinking.

Well, let's go after methane, then, because it's a really potent greenhouse gas - so let's cut down on that. Think of all the "green jobs" that'd create! Okay, so let's get to it: what's the number one source of methane on the planet? Cat got your keyboard?

It's termites. So what we need to do is catch up all of the billions of termites on the planet and fit them all with tiny butt-plugs that will capture the methane which we can then burn to produce "clean" energy while Saving The Planet™ and creating tens of thousands of Green Jobs.

What a plan!

I bought a Badger 5, 1/2 HP Insinkerator garbage disposal for a rental house. It cost about twice what I paid for one 10 years ago. But it includes a lovely brochure on how it helps reduce carbon emissions.

It's the same garbage disposal they've made for the last 35 years: only the green marketing has changed.

It's the greenmailing of America: we're all paying more for less.