climate change

Brown’s Executive Action Threat on Carbon Reduction Is Real

Governor Brown began exploring executive actions to reduce Oregon carbon emissions long before the 2019 legislature considered and ultimately failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation, according to enterprise reporting by the  Salem Reporter .

Governor Brown began exploring executive actions to reduce Oregon carbon emissions long before the 2019 legislature considered and ultimately failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation, according to enterprise reporting by the Salem Reporter.

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has been working on executive actions to limit greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon for more than a year, according to an enterprise story published today by the Salem Reporter.

Exploration of options was halted when it appeared the 2019 Oregon legislature was on track to adopt a cap-and-invest bill addressing industrial and transportation emissions. When House Bill 2020 faltered at the end of the legislative session, Governor Brown signaled she would look at executive actions and the DEQ vetting process resumed.

Aubrey Wieber of the Salem Reporter based her story on interviews, including with DEQ Director Richard Whitman, and an examination of public records and emails.

One of the more intriguing details in her story was a communication from Whitman to Brown five days before the legislature adjourned that outlined possible executive actions if the cap-and-invest bill failed to pass. While the bill’s demise has been publicly attributed to a Senate Republican walkout, Capitol insiders are aware Senate Democrats lacked the votes in their own caucus to pass HB 2020.

Whitman told Wieber, “We are on a pretty steady pace working on these issues at this point,” adding the agency is in frequent and often daily contact with Brown and her staff. 

The list of options included on the June 25 internal DEQ document sent to Brown describes a “gradually declining cap on industrial emissions and fossil fuel importers, strengthening Oregon’s low-carbon fuel standard, increasing access to public transit and promoting biking and walking,” Wieber reports.

“DEQ also outlined ways to strengthen regulations on landfills to lower methane emissions, more strictly regulate dairies, expand vehicle inspection programs so that medium-duty trucks are inspected twice per year and require newly built buildings to include electric vehicle charging stations.” 

In earlier communications between DEQ and Brown, there was extensive discussion of suing the federal Environmental Protection Agency “to ensure Oregon maintains the authority to use executive powers to regulate polluters.”

Since her post-session comment about executive action to curb carbon emissions, Brown has remained silent on whether or when she will undertake executive action. A spokesperson said Brown prefers legislative action, but added, “She has instructed her team and agencies to explore all options to achieve Oregon’s emissions reduction goals.” 

Whitman told Wieber the “main focus of the agency’s proposal is on capping industrial emissions,” adding, “While executive action can be extremely powerful, it lacks the nuance afforded by the legislative process. Going the legislative route allows the state to be less restrictive of industry, giving it the best ‘bang for its buck.’”

One major drawback to executive action is DEQ’s inability without legislative approval to impose fees to support a carbon reduction program. Whitman said that’s why the list of options has been narrowed to the “most workable program.”

Any executive action by Brown is likely to spark opposition by industry and legislative Republicans. Wieber quotes Rep. David Brock Smith, D-Port Orford, as hinting DEQ’s budget could become a target, as early as the 2020 legislative session. Brock Smith was vice chair of the House committee that produced HB 2020 and also sits on the committee that oversees DEQ’s budget.

[The Salem Reporter is a web-based news organization that focuses on Salem-area news as well investigative stories about state and national government.]

 

Climate Kids Lawsuit Could Overshadow Legislative Action

A group of 21 young plaintiffs, 11 of them from Oregon, are challenging the federal government to take responsibility for a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” Their lawsuit has so far withstood five attempts to bock or dismiss it. They are inching closer to an actual trial that could prove a turning point on public acceptance of climate change and the urgent need for a credible response. [Photo Credit: Robin Loznak/ZUMA]

A group of 21 young plaintiffs, 11 of them from Oregon, are challenging the federal government to take responsibility for a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” Their lawsuit has so far withstood five attempts to bock or dismiss it. They are inching closer to an actual trial that could prove a turning point on public acceptance of climate change and the urgent need for a credible response. [Photo Credit: Robin Loznak/ZUMA]

The efforts by Oregon Governor Kate and a Democratically controlled legislature to pass a measure to limit greenhouse gas emissions may be overshadowed by a more sweeping climate lawsuit initiated in 2016 largely on behalf of young Oregonians. 

The so-called Climate Kids have filed a lawsuit claiming a constitutional right “to life, liberty and property” under a government-backed “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” The lawsuit bears the name of Kelsey Juliana, who is a now a 22-year-old University of Oregon student. Juliana was interviewed on 60 Minutes over the weekend and declared, "My generation and all the generations to come have everything to lose if we don't act on climate change right now."

The longshot lawsuit, initially considered fanciful, has survived five attempts to block it in US District Court in Oregon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Despite efforts by the fossil fuel industry and the Trump administration, the lawsuit continues to move toward an actual trial. 

“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” US District of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken

“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” US District of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken

The Climate Kids and their Oregon-based attorneys insist they have compiled what they believe is overwhelming evidence. A press release from Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust, accuses the “federal government of creating a national energy system that causes climate change, is depriving them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property and [failing] to protect essential public trust resources. We look forward to presenting the scientific evidence of the harms and dangers these children face as a result of the actions their government has taken to cause the climate crisis.”

Julia Olson, executive director of Oregon-based Our Children’s Trust, is co-counsel on the Climate Kids lawsuit arguing younger Americans have a constitutional right to a climate system that can sustain human life.

Julia Olson, executive director of Oregon-based Our Children’s Trust, is co-counsel on the Climate Kids lawsuit arguing younger Americans have a constitutional right to a climate system that can sustain human life.

Olson told 60 Minutes the evidence is staggering. The Supreme Court, in its unsigned decision to let the lawsuit proceed, called its breadth “striking.”

Juliana is one of 21 youth plaintiffs who range in age from 11 to 22 years old. The ages of the plaintiffs are welded to the core of the constitutional argument. One pleading on behalf of the youths said, “As the government continues to neglect the consequences of climate change, they say, their future selves – and their future children – will suffer.” Eleven of the plaintiffs live in Oregon. Other plaintiffs hail from Colorado, Florida, New York, Hawaii, Arizona, Alaska, Washington, Pennsylvania and Louisiana.

An extensive list of supporters has accreted as challenges to the lawsuit have proceeded. They included well known environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, interfaith organizations and legal scholars. The League of Women Voters submitted an amicus brief that asserted it is a proper role for courts to act as a check and balance on political branches to address “irreversible impacts” that affect younger generations of Americans and generations to follow. 

Two of the underlying legal arguments that have emerged in Juliana v. United States involve “atmospheric trust litigation” based on a public trust doctrine, which has been applied to protect shorelines and other valuable natural resources.

Ultimately, the goal of the Climate Kids lawsuit are environmental policies that would accelerate efforts to reduce damaging greenhouse gas emissions and eventually abandon a carbon-based economy. Opponents variously argue that is an unattainable objective in any near-term time frame. Political opponents claim the lawsuit, if successful, would subordinate climate policy set by the President and Congress to a court ruling.

Assuming the lawsuit actually makes it to trial, the evidence presented could mark a turning point in broader public acceptance of the reality of climate change and the need for urgent action. The trial is likely to be linked with the Green New Deal that has been introduced in Congress and to propel more state environmental activism, especially in states like Oregon where the trial would be held and covered extensively.

 

Democrats Address Climate Change with Carbon Caps, Modernized Infrastructure

Democrats in the Oregon legislature and Congress will be pushing legislation to cap carbon emissions, including from transportation, which is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Oregon lawmakers will consider a cap and trade proposal, while Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio presses for a $500 billion federal investment in modernized infrastructure.

Democrats in the Oregon legislature and Congress will be pushing legislation to cap carbon emissions, including from transportation, which is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Oregon lawmakers will consider a cap and trade proposal, while Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio presses for a $500 billion federal investment in modernized infrastructure.

The Oregon cap and trade legislation was unveiled last week.  Oregon Public Broadcasting  provided a glimpse into its details.

The Oregon cap and trade legislation was unveiled last week. Oregon Public Broadcasting provided a glimpse into its details.

(Updated February 1, 2019)

While the big event in the 2019 Oregon legislative session is sure to be a $2 billion revenue package for schools and an industry-supported Medicaid package, the first major legislative thrust by Democrats will be a cap and trade bill designed to put a lid on carbon emissions. A key Oregonian in Congress is also pushing for a major response to climate change.

The bill is expected to surface by the end of the week. Its chief architect, Senator Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, says the measure will be very similar to a previously introduced bill, but with more clarity on issues such as oversight, mitigation for vulnerable industries and how quickly the emission cap will decline. Republicans are grumbling they haven’t seen evolving drafts since late last year.

Not surprisingly, Dembrow predicts a “noisy few weeks” when the Joint Committee on Carbon Reduction, which he co-chairs, considers the controversial measure, called the Clean Energy Jobs Bill.

image004.jpg

Environmental groups expect a cap and trade bill will pass this session. Governor Brown and Democratic legislators vigorously campaigned in support of climate change legislation. Brown's budget framework, released late last year, detailed the creation of a Carbon Policy Office, with a $1.4 million budget, that has been charged with exploring how Oregon can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions while still growing the state’s economy.

State Senator Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, and Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio will be on point with legislation to address climate change. Dembrow co-chairs the committee to take up a cap and trade system that seeks to limit carbon emissions, including from transportation fuels. DeFazio is floating a measure to invest $500 billion to modernize the nation’s transportation system and reduce carbon emissions, while increasing resiliency in highways, tunnels and bridges.

State Senator Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, and Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio will be on point with legislation to address climate change. Dembrow co-chairs the committee to take up a cap and trade system that seeks to limit carbon emissions, including from transportation fuels. DeFazio is floating a measure to invest $500 billion to modernize the nation’s transportation system and reduce carbon emissions, while increasing resiliency in highways, tunnels and bridges.

The basic idea is to set a fixed limit on greenhouse gas emissions and issue allowances that can be traded in an open market, which currently includes seven states and four Canadian provinces. The greenhouse gas emission limit would ratchet down over time.

The Environmental Defense Fund anticipates Oregon’s cap and trade bill will parallel a similar structure in California that extends to transportation fuels as well as regulated electricity and natural gas utilities.

As Oregon lawmakers hack away on climate change legislation, Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is preparing to push for a $500 billion investment to address crumbling US infrastructure, support “green” infrastructure that is more resilient to climate change and develop cleaner fuels. Among other funding, DeFazio proposes issuing 30-year bonds paid for by indexing the federal gas tax to inflation, which he says could generate between $17 to $20 billion per year to invest.

He wants the House to pass a version of his legislation in the next six months and it appears House Democratic leaders support his push.

DeFazio told Curbed in an interview there is a $102 billion backlog to repair America’s metropolitan transit systems and that critical transportation routes such as the Holland Tunnel in New York and the I-5 Columbia River Bridge could be wiped out by flooding or earthquakes, causing economic catastrophes.

Curbed observed, “[DeFazio] takes control of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee during a pivotal time when technology advances, long-term funding issues and climate change demand a comprehensive, forward-thinking plan.”

In quintessential DeFazio fashion, he said, “I’m going to approach it from a very hard-hearted way: Boy, you’re stupid if you don’t make these investments.”

 

Oregon, Washington May Provide Presidential Hopefuls

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Washington Governor Jay Inslee are seriously weighing Democratic presidential campaigns in 2020. Both are from the progressive lane of the Democratic Party, have earned national recognition for their key issues and have campaigned in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Washington Governor Jay Inslee are seriously weighing Democratic presidential campaigns in 2020. Both are from the progressive lane of the Democratic Party, have earned national recognition for their key issues and have campaigned in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

Oregon’s and Washington’s role in recent presidential elections has been relegated to ATMs. Candidates swoop in, attend high-priced fundraisers and slip out of town, often without even a perfunctory press interview. That may change in 2020.

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Washington Governor Jay Inslee have dropped huge hints they are considering entering the 2020 Democratic presidential sweepstakes. Though both would be considered today as political longshots, each has a distinct political issue to push. Merkley is focused on voting rights, Inslee on responding to climate change, as issue he has championed for years, including the book he coauthored, Apollo’s Fire

Merkley has earned national recognition for going to Texas to expose the internment at the border of asylum-seeking Latin American migrants and their children. Inslee gained recognition for leading the Democratic Governors Association as it reclaimed a number of statehouses in the 2018 midterm election. 

Both hail from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which could be a crowded lane in the 2020 Democratic primary with candidates such as Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. Merkley and Inslee have been point persons confronting President Trump on key issues such as immigration, environmental protection and trade policy. Both have hit the campaign hustings, appearing side by side at a campaign event in Johnson City, Iowa and in New Hampshire, both early-voting primary states.

One advantage Inslee has over better-known candidates, and Merkley, is his executive experience (Inslee served in Congress before his election as governor). Now serving his second term, Inslee can point to achievements on voting rights, a higher minimum wage, ensuring net neutrality and major transportation investments.

As Jennifer Rubin, an opinion writer for the Washington Post, sees it: “[Inslee] might consider stressing his entire record as evidence of his ability to successfully govern, which includes climate change policies, and his role in challenging Trump’s immigration policies. Almost as an afterthought, he notes that renewable-energy legislation helped launched a multibillion-dollar wind industry and helped his state lead in GDP growth and wages. That seems to be his greatest selling point – creating a progressive haven while growing the economy, raising wages and saving the planet.”

Another advantage of potential Merkley and Inslee candidacies is that neither are in their 70s, as are Warren, Sanders, Joe Biden – and Donald Trump. Merkley is 62 and Inslee is 67. They also are fresh faces on the national political landscape, which might appeal to newly registered Democratic voters that helped Democrats regain control of the House.

Merkley faces a big decision. If he runs for President, he can’t under Oregon law run simultaneously for re-election to the Senate. He has told reporters he will make a final decision in the early part of this year. Meanwhile, Merkley has staged what amounts to a marathon of townhall meetings in Oregon before the new Congress convened this week. It is unclear whether he has taken steps to recruit a campaign staff or start fundraising in earnest. Political observers suggest it may take anywhere from $40 to $60 million for a Democratic presidential candidate to make it to Super Tuesday primaries in March, 2020.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee, like his potential Pacific Northwest presidential aspirant Jeff Merkley, has gone to the US-Mexico border to denounce Trump administration immigration policies and establish their credentials as credible national contenders.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee, like his potential Pacific Northwest presidential aspirant Jeff Merkley, has gone to the US-Mexico border to denounce Trump administration immigration policies and establish their credentials as credible national contenders.

Inslee received encouragement to throw his hat in the presidential ring in 2016 as one of the few Democratic governors to survive. He has campaigned around the country for Democratic gubernatorial candidates in 2018, giving him more exposure than usually accrues to a governor from the Pacific Northwest. Inslee is given credit for helping seven Democrats capture statehouses and assisting some Democratic incumbents such as Oregon Governor Kate Brown fend off well-financed GOP challengers.

There are indications Inslee is lining up donors to his political action committee and preparing to form a presidential exploratory committee, which is something Warren did this week as she moved closer to becoming an announced candidate. He also has amassed a list of more than 200,00 climate change supporters nationwide that could serve as a jumping off point for his candidacy.

The presidential primaries will have some other new twists. California and Texas have moved up their primary election dates in a bid to have a greater say about who emerges as party nominees. As big states with sprawling, expensive media markets, they pose special challenges for lesser known candidates without big campaign war chests. 

Another challenge is the emergence of Beto O’Rourke, who lost his bid to unseat Texas Senator Ted Cruz while gaining a rabid national following and lengthy small-donor contributor list, and Harris, who represents California in the US Senate and received positive national exposure for her sharp questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The best thing going for Merkley and/or Inslee candidacies is a clear focus, which will be essential in a field of up to 20 candidates and a Democratic debate schedule that begins as early as this summer. Democratic voters – and GOP political strategists – will be watching closely to see who stands out from the pack based on substance and style and who has the best chance to go toe-to-toe with Trump in the general election.

 

The Oregon Primary Will Matter. Almost.

    Coming to the game late in the primary, Oregon voters may not feel like their votes count on May 17, but the state's handful of delegates could be enough to put Donald Trump at or near the 1,237 delegates he needs for the GOP nomination. 

 

Coming to the game late in the primary, Oregon voters may not feel like their votes count on May 17, but the state's handful of delegates could be enough to put Donald Trump at or near the 1,237 delegates he needs for the GOP nomination. 

Oregonians voting in the May 17 primary will almost feel like their ballots mattered. Almost.

After primaries in five Eastern states today, including delegate-rich Pennsylvania, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton may be close to locking up their respective parties’ presidential nominations. The Oregon primary may not matter after all. 

But whether or not the outcome is sealed up, the presidential candidates are expected to come here. John Kasich is scheduled to campaign in Oregon this week. Trump, Clinton and Sanders should come, too.

The only other remaining candidate, Ted Cruz, won’t show up. Cruz and Kasich cut a deal by which Cruz will concentrate on Indiana and Kasich will campaign in New Mexico and Oregon. Their collective goal – and increasingly desperate hope – is to win enough delegates to block Trump’s seemingly inevitable march to the GOP presidential nomination this June. Kasich says the divide and conquer strategy was necessary because he and Cruz have limited time and campaign cash.

Kasich has been embraced by a good chunk of Oregon’s GOP establishment, with former Oregon lawmaker Bruce Starr steering his campaign activity here. Kasich’s pragmatic approach to policy and his refusal to engage in negative campaigning fit pretty well with Oregon’s temperament, but the Ohio governor may be viewed by GOP conservatives as not conservative enough. For example, Oregon’s pro-life leader said the Kasich-Cruz deal wouldn’t change her group’s endorsement of Cruz. It also doesn’t help that the Kasich team neglected to submit anything for the Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders may make his Oregon campaign a referendum on issues he wants to see in the party’s national platform. Sanders sent out a slick mailer devoted entirely to five-point plan to combat climate change. He also has shown an ability to attract a huge crowd at his previous rallies in Portland.

Clinton has experienced hands guiding her Oregon campaign activity. Expect the Clinton pitch in Oregon to be for party unity in the fall to prevent Trump or any other GOP candidate from capturing the White House. Clinton might underscore the need for party unity by pointing to the nomination of U.S. Supreme Court justices who will preserve abortion rights and key aspects of Obamacare and possibly overturn Citizens United, the decision that opened the floodgates to large and sometimes secret corporate campaign contributions.

A Trump appearance, which his local backers are encouraging, would be an event. Despite promises of acting more presidential on the campaign trail, Trump seems to be back to his old ways – calling out critics and taking aim at Clinton. At a rally this week, Trump mocked Kasich for always campaigning while he’s eating.

Because Oregon’s Democratic and Republican primaries are closed, non-affiliated Oregon voters won’t get a chance to cast a ballot for a major party candidate. That invariably incites a debate about a different kind of primary that allows everyone to vote, regardless of party registration.

The Oregon primary may not really matter in determining who wins the 2016 GOP and Democratic presidential nominations, but it will make many Oregonians feel as if their votes matter a little bit. Oregon’s handful of delegates may be enough to push Trump near or over the 1237 delegates he needs to capture the GOP nomination on the first ballot and avoid a contested convention. Oregon’s Democratic vote could lend its voice to the need for progressive platform planks. .

We aren’t likely to see candidates eating at our favorite local diners, but are likely to see them at events, not just faces in the backseat of limousines rushing to or from the airport after a fly-in fundraiser. That makes the Oregon primary matter. Almost.