2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

I don't understand how anyone can say CO2 from biomass isn't biogenic, but that's really beside the point. What matters is whether it's non-accumulative/carbon neutral. If it's from trees that are to be replanted, the answer is probably yes, since the emissions can be balanced (even if the rate of uptake is slower/varies regionally/isn't as good for near-term reductions). It may add to the short-term CO2 loading of the atmosphere, but if it's fire-control biomass or slash, then it will burn anyway. And as the US News article suggests, fossil fuel is at this point the likely alternative in most cases. If we were deploying solar baseload etc. fast enough to keep up with demand, we probably wouldn't need biomass. I can understand concerns about it becoming a slippery slope leading to increased forest activity unrelated to fire control, but perhaps policy can address that.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I guess people have different relationships with family, while society and finding one's way in it can be more complicated these days. Multi-generational households certainly aren't unprecedented, particularly during hard economic times (the depression era for example), even if they have become more of a stigma with the help of pop psychotainment.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

It seems that in a lot of these cases, social support (community, friends, and/or family) had a significant role to play. Reminds me of the reality that very few people are an island. But while those around you can help facilitate "chances", they can also be a double-edged sword if you allow them to wholly define you, or get you too bound up in the ultimately trivial.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I like this question. We keep hearing that returning the top rate to pre-Bush levels (a few extra percent) would hurt job creation. But then many of the larger businesses that would be affected are sitting on cash positions and/or still giving their execs generous compensation packages. The real issue in much of the economy is middle class DEMAND. Extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans isn't going to help that, or the debt that big military spending and the economic fiasco have left us.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

The science suggests that climate changes, accelerated by the buildup of fossil carbon, pose risks to holocene ecology and societies. Despite some efforts to muddle this reality, and spread claims of scientific malfeasance, the strength of the case is reflected in both the reviewed literature and the statements of top scientific institutes.

Given that thermal inertia and feedbacks mean changes will likely continue for at least decades after we cut emissions, there's some urgency to getting a serious start. Do the candidates support a system that would recognize the externalized cost of fossil fuels, and provide consumer rebates, aimed at spurring CO2 emission cuts and green jobs? Thanks.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

The element of conflict can add depth and interest to a life story, but what really seems important is our impacts on and relationships with others and the world. I would find a story nearly as compelling if a depressed "trust fund baby" or hated Bernie Madoff decided to use their resources to reach out to others and enrich lives. Even if it were relatively free from struggle and conflict, it would at least have meaning to some.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I too see this as an issue of willful neglect if competant medical care was available and the odds of success were good. It's like food: Sure, in some countries parents subject their kids to malnutrition, but it's not a matter of choice. Here, that would probably be considered criminal neglect, regardless of what religious beliefs the parents might have about food. Context matters.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

For much of WESTERN Oregon, photovoltaic panels seem like a relatively poor investment. Even in Germany, they probably wouldn't be as prolific without heavy subsidy. Any public dollars should be directed to sources that are most regionally appropriate, with emphasis on efficiency technologies like ground-source heat pumps in areas with limited renewables. What I would like to know, is what's a reliable, unbiased source of comparison? If there isn't one, we need regional scientific assessments of what's most practical, economical, and environmentally benign over the next decade or two.

posted 4 years ago
view in context

The tar sands sales pitch coming from Canada seems very similar to that of American "clean coal". The energy industry wants to get these sources developed, while taxpayers pour money into what appears to be an expensive and unproven technology. I'm all for research, but when carbon capture and sequestration is presented as a near-term solution, depite storage, liability, and commercial scaling issues, I have to ask if this is just another delay tactic. If not, the industry should be able to show significant private investment in the technology. So far, American coal companies and utilities have not show much faith in it. Even the Senator of Big Coal Virginia doesn't seem to think it's ready for prime time.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I would've liked free market Terry to tell us what he means by "the air is getting cleaner". It's that kind of generic language that can be highly misleading. Certain aspects of the environment have improved, yes, but fossil carbon accumulation is not one of them. The science has repeatedly re-affirmed a high risk of rapid interglacial climate change, and impacts on holocene ecology and civilization. Neither Terry's approach nor Zerzan’s is reality-based or helpful at this moment in time.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

That aspect of the issue, or at least the perception of it, is one that makes this all so difficult. Upfront costs of accelerating a transition vs. future costs (potentially including to tens of generations) of not doing so. Some estimates, like here, suggest it's the delayers who are the alarmists - the economic alarmists. But regardless of accuracy, it must be admitted that there's a lot of work that can be done to modernize the power grid and make other efficiency improvements, as well as invest in alternatives. Procedes from any carbon tax, or from cap & trade allowance auctioning, can be used to help lower income people improve efficiency and tap into alternatives.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Despite the view of certain fossil-funded people with a record of disseminating misleading information, the risk of rapid climate change is something that must be addressed starting NOW. Thermal inertia and amplifying feedback effects in the climate system help make this reality. From what I've seen, "clean coal" isn't ready to make any significant contribution to CO2 reduction, and may end up being non-competitive with other alternatives. We hear about technologies that can reduce cost, but we're still talking about trying to efficiently remove and permanently store huge amounts of carbon dioxide annually. Most coal plants don't lend themselves to that, and most aren't parked right near an oil field for deposit of compressed CO2.

Until someone cites a firm, scientifically-based study suggesting any carbon sequestration technology can be successfully and cost-effectively scaled up within a decade, we should be focusing more on efficiency and other alternatives. Including importing baseload power from solar thermal plants and exploring geothermal. There's too much at stake to bet CCS technology will be ready in time, let alone cost competitive. There's some discussion of the prospects of "clean coal" here.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

This issue seems to boil down in large part to how much a community is willing to budget for intensively maintaining a network of streets. As it is, people oppose a modest new gas tax for improving street maintenance. But one thing with salt, and some of the substitutes, is the possibility of concrete damage, particularly when strong freeze-thaw cycles are a potential issue.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

Addressing the energy and climate issues will likely involve making fossil fuels more expensive and alternatives more competitive. During that transition, I would support some relief in the form of fuel credits to low income people and vital industries like transit and farming. In my mind, it's worth it for the longer-term goal.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

To Paul Beck: Native Americans may have conducted some past forest management in the region, but did they build a vast network of roads and haul out logs en masse using mechanized equipment, leaving mostly smaller, more vulnerable trees? I'm not sure it's quite the same thing. Stands that have been logged and poorly managed should be thinned as necessary, but the wholesale inclusion of stands that have remained relatively undisturbed for centuries wouldn't look much like a focus on forest health. It would look suspiciously like past efforts to get out the cut.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I recall some research suggesting the NET climate effect of temperate region forest is modest when all is said and done. Including albedo changes from additional planting (particularly evergreen), and some soil carbon loss after logging. Really, the oceans and tropical forests have had the largest net effect. Regional variability and assessment difficulty may be be one reason Terrapass has snubbed tree planting projects. Clearly, though, sequestration enhancement is only part of the equation. Humans are currently releasing something like 26 gigatons of fossil CO2 (over 7 gigatons carbon equivalent) annually. As inconvenient as it might be, output reduction remains of primary importance.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Regarding the study Emily mentioned on Southern ocean carbon dioxide uptake: Apparently, atmospheric concentration isn't the only determinant of how much is absorbed in a given region. Water stratification in a warming world and wind speeds also seem to be factors. There's certainly a lot to consider on this issue, including that acidification may have biological consequences that loop back to the climate system, since organisms like diatoms are a big part of the carbon cycle.

Speaking of which, the idea of seeding the oceans with iron came up. Although on it's face it's an exciting possibility, there is the question of real-world effectiveness. If memory serves, at least one study found that iron quickly dispersed and mixed into deep water. So it may not have much effect, at least without large, repeated applications that could have undesirable side-effects. There's also more to long-term carbon sequestration than just fertilizing phytoplankton, like water temperature and the depth to which organic material sinks. It might still help, but the best solution is getting serious with international fossil CO2 agreements and accelerating energy reform.

posted 5 years ago
view in context