via the OTRAN list…
Governor Kulongoski has released his climate change agenda for the 2009 legislative session. A major omission noted by many is the absence of a cap-and-trade carbon trading system as contemplated by the Western Climate Initiative.
Here’s the transportation section:
Sustainable Transportation
The Governor recognizes the dual need to both invest in transportation while also advancing options that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That’s why the Governor’s climate change and transportation packages must be complementary, addressing the state’s growing transportation needs while also takings actions to reduce carbon. The Governor’s package will put forward several sustainable transportation measures that focus on reducing vehicle miles traveled, expanding transportation options, and encouraging new vehicle technologies.
Encouraging Alternative Vehicle Technologies: The Governor’s transportation initiative will encourage the use of alternative technologies like plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles. The state will shift its business and residential energy tax credits from widely used hybrid vehicles to new vehicles that produce less carbon. As vehicle manufacturers introduce new technologies, the state will pursue public and private partnerships to ensure Oregon is the place to implement new vehicle technologies, such as charging stations for electric vehicles.
Adopting Low Carbon Fuels: This will authorize the Environmental Quality Commission to develop a low-carbon fuel standard similar to standards in Washington and California. This standard will require fuel providers to reduce the average carbon intensity of fuels sold by 10% over time. A low-carbon fuel standard will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also provide companies with flexibility to meet the standard through innovation and new technology.
Expanding Transportation Options: The Governor is committed to setting an overarching vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction goal for the state. Reducing discretionary trips in single occupancy vehicles will be a high priority, particularly in urban areas where more transportation choices exist. This will include an expanded Transportation Options program to help provide relief from high fuel prices and enhance community livability through expanded pedestrian and bicycle programs, increased numbers of carpools and vanpools, a statewide rideshare program, education and marketing, and incentive programs designed to reduce cars on our roadways.
Developing a Least Carbon Model: This legislation directs the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to develop a least carbon planning model – similar to what utility companies currently use – that will be applied when solving transportation problems. This modeling directs ODOT to consider the least carbon option, such as increased investments in rail or transit, in order to relieve congestion, rather than just building additional capacity.
I’m curious what a Least Carbon Model analysis would say about the Columbia River Crossing…
42 responses to “Where’s the Cap-and-Trade?”
Let’s see.
Subsidies to the rich who can afford expensive cars, LEED-certified buildings.
Subsidies to the poor who are given additional weatherization grants.
Absolutely NOTHING for those in-between.
Until policies are enacted that benefit 100% of the population, we are going nowhere very slowly. Yes, we might build one new LEED Gold building for the rich to live in – which means we need a population of folks who are going to live in Gresham or Hillsboro and live in non-green buildings to serve them.
That makes no sense… Enacting “zero carbon” for CRC means ensuring that people can afford to live – and work – in Portland, so that they don’t have to live in Vancouver. Until our land use policies are fixed to enable more affordable housing in Portland, more housing in Vancouver, with or without CRC, is a matter of fact.
[Moderator: Attempt at starting another global warming existence debate removed.]
As far as the cap & trade tax, it is a cruel joke on the poor.
The whole idea of the cap & trade is to force energy prices up, until the state as a whole, is FORCED to use 44% less energy. There is no upper limit on the price, only the 44% CO2 reduction goal.
Anyone who does not think this will make the price skyrocket needs to retake econ 101.
What price increase will it take for you to freeze in the winter and roast in the summer?
What price increase will it require for you to take MAX where you don’t need to go?
What gas price increase will it take for you to decide to spend an extra two hours a day, away from your family, on mass transit?
What price increase will it take for you to use 44% less electricity?
This is not a site for debating the existence of anthropogenic global warming. There are plenty of those. Discussion of policy is fine so long as it is topical to the thread, but I’m not letting this thread degenerate into yet another global warming denialist debate.
There is no upper limit on the price
Not true. Prices will continue to fall for forms of energy which produce less net carbon as they become more widely deployed and technology improves, combined with sensible subsidies for switching to energy-saving appliances, heating, insulation, etc. To claim that there is “no upper limit” is to claim that alternatives will not become more widespread if carbon-producing energy prices increase. Anyone who thinks there is “no upper limit” on pricing needs to retake econ 101.
Billy wrote: What price increase will it require for you to take MAX where you don’t need to go?
Interesting point – would TriMet be subject to such a tax?
Right now, TriMet (as a government entity) is exempt from most taxes including diesel fuel tax, tire tax, weight/mile tax, and so on.
However, keep in mind that TriMet’s energy source to power MAX consists largely of coal and natural gas; so if TriMet were subject to environmental taxes, MAX (and Portland Streetcar, for that matter) would not be exempt from such taxes (nor would a trolleybus). Unless, of course, TriMet could prove the source of its energy (i.e. could it obtain the necessary status to be a direct customer of the Bonneville Power Administration?)
And then, what drive would there be for TriMet to realize that it cannot incrementally add new service while ignoring existing services – and take the initiative to upgrade its existing bus network to either trolleybus or streetcar (or hydrogen-cell bus), instead of building brand new routes from scratch?
Bob R. Says:
(Quoting billy): There is no upper limit on the price
Bob R. Says:
Not true. Prices will continue to fall for forms of energy which produce less net carbon as they become more widely deployed and technology improves,
billy:
You are missing two points here:
1. “Continue to fall” – solar electric is now about 5-10 times the cost of coal. It can fall by 50% and still give the average home a $250-$500 MONTHLY electric bill, instead of $100. While not “without limit” that is close enough for most home budgets.
2. You assume that supply will come on line fast enough. If it doesn’t then the price will indeed rise WITHOUT LIMIT.
3. You also assume that there is a viable alternative to coal electric. One that WILL supply all our needs in just FOUR YEARS. SUCH A TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT EXIST. Already Europe is finding that wind is saving ZERO CO2 because of the intermittency of the wind. (Actually ONE technology does exist but the paranoids have outlawed it – nu clear.) No viable supply = price rise WITHOUT LIMIT.
Why I say there is no viable replacement energy source available:
1. Solar costs 5-10x coal. Is only available about 8 hrs per CLOUDLESS day. (Anyone who claims it works on cloudy days is calling 20-50% full production.)
2. Wind and solar both require 100% backup. That means a thermal plant on standby, beyond what one gets by switching the dams on and off.
Bob R. Says:
combined with sensible subsidies for switching to energy-saving appliances, heating, insulation, etc.
billy:
And tell us who pays for the subsidies. If you just subsidize a few people you can hide by taxing everyone just a little. You are talking about subsidizing EVERYONE. There is only one source of the money – EVERYONE. In other words WE WILL ALL PAY FOR IT.
Bob R. Says:
To claim that there is “no upper limit” is to claim that alternatives will not become more widespread if carbon-producing energy prices increase.
billy:
There you go again, glossing over that famous line “energy price increase.” But you are correct: THE PRICE OF ENERGY MUST INCREASE for renewables to become attractive. (It is the same con Metro is trying to pull for transit: transit is inherently undesirable, so they are working hard to make driving even more undesirable so that transit will win.)
Bob R. Says:
Anyone who thinks there is “no upper limit” on pricing needs to retake econ 101.
billy:
Wrong again. See above. THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE. And you are willing to gamble millions of people’s well being on it miraculously appearing. Shame on you . Shame on the Gov.
PS: The TRADE part of cap and trade is expected to become a $100 BILLION market. Guess who is positioned to CASH IN ON THESE BILLIONS? Al Gore; Nik Stern (of the fearmongering Stern Report).
Refrences:
$100 BILLION market: http://www.ideacarbon.com/markets.asp
Al Gore: generationim.com/about/team.html
Al Gore: money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/
Al Gore: //209.157.64.200/%5Ehttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f78fbec2-161b-11dd-880a-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Al Gore: ft.com/cms/s/0/f78fbec2-161b-11dd-880a-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Stern: ideacarbon.com/events_july07.asp
billy:
Your talking points and writing style sound very familiar, almost as though they have been repeated on this very blog ad nauseum, by you, under a different screen name. But that would be downright nutty, wouldn’t it?
Hey, Grant!
Any comments on the substance of my comments, or do you agree with them?
Learn how energy and oil prices are really determined. Visit us at http://www.thetruthabout.com/public/266.cfm?affID=and16
The GOV:
“This will include an expanded Transportation Options program to help provide relief from high fuel prices ”
Relief from whaaaat? High whaaaat? What planet is the GOV living on, I just paid $2.21/gal at the airport costco.
Maybe it’ll be under $2.00 next month.
That’s great, billy. Very unusual based on the gas prices around Portland, which are much closer to $3 than to $2.
“Very unusual based on the gas prices around Portland, which are much closer to $3 than to $2.”
Usually they are just a few cents below the Arco, now they are a lot lower.
I am guessing they are passing along the price decreases as they happen, instead of with a delay.
From PortlandGasPrices.com :
Local Price Snapshot
Today 2.649
Yesterday 2.684
One Week Ago 2.895
One Month Ago 3.479
One Year Ago 2.909
Just as an aside, Costco’s ad on that site says “(Mbrs, Debit & Amex only! NO CASH! have cards rdy!)”. Isn’t this what TriMet has been criticised for regarding WES ticketing? (Aside from the members-only part) :-)
Bob:
From PortlandGasPrices.com :
Local Price Snapshot
Today 2.649
Yesterday 2.684
One Week Ago 2.895
One Month Ago 3.479
One Year Ago 2.909
Billy:
Costco Today: 2.219
(You wanna see the receipt?)
“Just as an aside, Costco’s ad on that site says “(Mbrs, Debit & Amex only! NO CASH! have cards rdy!)”. Isn’t this what TriMet has been criticised for regarding WES ticketing? (Aside from the members-only part) :-)”
I just stick my costco card in the pump, followed by the debit card, PIN & they pump away.
Cheap enough to drive a ten miles to save a buck on a loaf of bread over the local TOD, mixed use, “gyp joint” grocery. Not to mention the tens of dollars saved by a, now cheap, drive to Wall Mart. Too bad Portland does not believe in allowing efficient retailers in their efficient land use villages.
Low cost energy = higher standard of living.
This is undoubtedly a digression, but shopping for groceries at Costco makes no sense unless you’re feeding a large family or group, other than some careful shopping in the meat department. Depending on where someone lives, it makes little sense to drive out to a Costco to tank up unless, I suppose, you’re driving a vehicle with a huge fuel tank.
(You wanna see the receipt?)
No, I didn’t doubt that you paid $2.21. I shop occasionally at the same CostCo, and the web site I referenced did show that price. I was simply pointing out the averages, current and historical.
Bob R. wrote: Isn’t this what TriMet has been criticised for regarding WES ticketing?
Huge difference.
TriMet: Public agency designed to serve the public.
Costco: A private corporation which serves its stockholders; further a membership organization which serves its members.
Clearly, Costco’s stockholders AND members don’t care about the payment options at the gas stations and at their stores, otherwise they would have been changed by now. Frankly when I walk into Costco (as a member) I fully expect to pay with cash or a debit card, and if I don’t like it I can shop somewhere else.
TriMet’s stockholders are you and me. TriMet needs to make it EASY to ride a train, not limit access to a certain population. Otherwise, TriMet is welcome to convert itself from a government agency to a for-profit corporation.
What are my options besides WES? I can drive my car…but then why do we bother with TriMet? Isn’t the point of TriMet to encourage me NOT to drive my car?
Erik –
Just to be clear, I do think that TriMet should take cash on WES, and that it’s ticket machine options in all cases so far are inadequate. I just found it funny that some people (I didn’t name you or imply you, by the way) act as though TriMet should run “more like a private business”, but a number of the private businesses which are popular in the area actually have policies quite different than TriMet.
CostCo has it’s policy because they don’t want to handle cash at the pump, and they haven’t been able to work the same kind of special deal with other credit cards that they have with American Express. TriMet doesn’t want to handle cash (at least via machine) anymore… it’s the wrong decision on TriMet’s part, but it’s understandable… a lot of businesses don’t like the risk, time constraints, and cost associated with handling cash, and are willing to limit customer choice in order to run their operations more smoothly.
Isn’t the point of TriMet to encourage me NOT to drive my car?
In my view, the primary point of TriMet is to provide transit and paratransit service. If done right, it should naturally encourage people to use cars less. They’ll of course have to advertise and promote the idea of using transit instead of cars, but the primary point is the service itself, not the promotion of the service.
Thanks for addressing my three sentence aside with 5 paragraphs. ;-)
Jeff F Says: Depending on where someone lives, it makes little sense to drive out to a Costco to tank up..
Assume 5 miles to Costco, 22 MPG, $2.21 vs $2.49, 15 gal purchase.
Cost of drive: (10/22) x 2.21 = $1.00
Savings on gas: 15 x (2.49-2.21) = $4.20
DO THE MATH!
Your math didn’t include wear-and-tear on the vehicle (as usual), membership costs (~$50/annually unless you want a Costco membership for other purposes), the value of time/convenience compared to getting gas closer to home/work, and the fact that driving 5 miles out of your way to Costco requires driving 5 miles back from Costco.
Bob R. Says: Your math didn’t include wear-and-tear on the vehicle (as usual),
billy: As usual, you didn’t consider if your added expense would change the result. It won’t. But just to keep your nits in order, we’ll use PoatlandFacts’ estimate of per mile variable costs, not including gas of 5.6c/mi: Add $0.56 to the $1.00 cost for a net savings of $2.64
Bob R. Says: membership costs (~$50/annually unless you want a Costco membership for other purposes),
billy: been a member since BEFORE they sold gas at that store
Bob R. Says: the value of time/convenience compared to getting gas closer to home/work,
billy: Gee, you never bring up time or convenience when promoting slow, dangerous, wasteful transit.
Further I actually bought a few things at Costco because they were FAR cheaper than anywhere else in town that I have found. Then it was up to Winco for the same reason. A 10 mile trip not only saved on gas, but on several other things that would probably cost double in a planner’s smart growth village. (Why do planners keep promoting things that lower people’s standard of living?)
Bob R. Says: and the fact that driving 5 miles out of your way to Costco requires driving 5 miles back from Costco.
Billy: Driving back is why I used 10/22 instead of 5/22. Didn’t you even bother to follow the math?
JK wrote: “As usual, you didn’t consider if your added expense would change the result. It won’t.”
A $15,000 car with a 150,000 mile life span costs 10 cents a mile just to use at all, not counting oil changes, brakes, belts, shocks, tires, lights, insurance, etc., etc., etc. That throws off your result by $1.00, and it’s not a “nit”.
been a member since BEFORE they sold gas at that store
Good for you. Me too. Doesn’t work for everyone.
Gee, you never bring up time or convenience when promoting slow, dangerous, wasteful transit
I’ve never promoted “slow”, “dangerous”, or “wasteful” transit. For the transit I do promote, we’ve had time/convenience discussions many, many times, so you just haven’t been paying attention.
Driving back is why I used 10/22 instead of 5/22. Didn’t you even bother to follow the math?
My mistake. Sorry about that, JK.
Bob R. wrote: TriMet doesn’t want to handle cash (at least via machine) anymore
There’s always the option of having staffed ticket sellers. In this economy, we could use more jobs! (Plus, manned ticket booths would also serve as a security watchout plus provide personalized TriMet information at more locations than just one downtown ticket office.)
Thanks for addressing my three sentence aside with 5 paragraphs. ;-)
You’re welcome. :-)
Bob R. wrote: the value of time/convenience compared to getting gas closer to home/work, and the fact that driving 5 miles out of your way to Costco requires driving 5 miles back from Costco.
What if I live only 1.8 miles from Costco?
Costco doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense if you live in the Pearl (then again, anything other than Freddy’s doesn’t make a lot of sense, it’s the only department/variety store in the area.) But not everyone lives in the Pearl – if you live in Beaverton or Hillsboro (either of which claim nearly 90,000 residents) or Tigard (40,000+ residents), than Costco is certainly a worthy and close destination to, in the words of Fred Meyer, “save time, gas and money with one stop shopping”.
Erik Halstead:
What if I live only 1.8 miles from Costco?
Not everyone lives in the Pearl, true. So why bring it up? If you look at a map of the metro area and the locations of Costco stores, you’ll see that a significant percentage of the people living there don’t live in the Pearl and yet still live five miles away from a Costco.
Jeff F. wrote: Not everyone lives in the Pearl, true. So why bring it up? If you look at a map of the metro area and the locations of Costco stores, you’ll see that a significant percentage of the people living there don’t live in the Pearl and yet still live five miles away from a Costco.
To rephrase your statement:
Not everyone lives five miles from Costco, true. So why bring it up? If you look at a map of the metro area and the locations of Costco stores, you’ll see that a significant percentage of people live less than five miles from a Costco.
So what if some people live five, ten, twenty, even fifty miles from a Costco? So what if people actually can find that they CAN live in the suburbs AND live close to the businesses that they use? Just because someone chooses to live in the suburbs does not mean that they have to go far distances to anywhere; when I lived in Beaverton I could easily take a bus anywhere I needed to go (and I did), and I had little NEED to go to downtown Portland considering that I lived, worked, and shopped all in Beaverton.
I think Costco is pretty intelligent in locating their stores where their customers are, or are willing to go to. Costco even wanted to put in a store at Yeon & Nicoli but was turned down by the City of Portland, who would later approve another (and larger) big box store that caters to, ironically, folks in “small spaces” yet is located some eight miles away from the condo-heavy Pearl District and has a massive parking lot and a very underutilized MAX stop.
That land where Costco wanted to build but was denied by the City? It’s still a vacant grassy lot, zoned for industrial use, surrounded by industrial uses (many of which are vacant, such as the former Wickes Furniture warehouse), and has no plans for it. Instead of building a popular store in a close-in location, people HAVE to travel out of their way, and land that could be productive, property-tax generating land is not generating revenue.
I had wondered since I moved to Portland about that empty lot. I wasn’t sure if the city was saving it for an interchange at Nicoli or if it was owned by a developer just sitting on it.
Stopping a Costco though? That would have been a great value-add for the Pearl and NW, and Costco usually opens in semi-industrial areas anyway. I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed.
Erik Halstead:
That land where Costco wanted to build but was denied by the City? It’s still a vacant grassy lot, zoned for industrial use, surrounded by industrial uses (many of which are vacant, such as the former Wickes Furniture warehouse), and has no plans for it. Instead of building a popular store in a close-in location, people HAVE to travel out of their way, and land that could be productive, property-tax generating land is not generating revenue.
Personally, I was very disappointed and completely confused by that decision.
However, I still do not understand what that has to do with much of anything. Your response seems pretty defensive, as though you thought anyone was being critical of people who lived in the suburbs.
JK wrote: A $15,000 car with a 150,000 mile life span costs 10 cents a mile just to use at all,
Billy: Modern cars last a lot more than 150,000 miles. Resale value has little (but some) to do with milage, so it really isn’t justified to consider mileage in this sort of calculation.
JK wrote: not counting oil changes, brakes, belts, shocks, tires, lights, insurance, etc., etc., etc. That throws off your result by $1.00, and it’s not a “nit”.
Billy: Still doesn’t change the conclusion, so it is a nit.
JK wrote: I’ve never promoted “slow”, “dangerous”, or “wasteful” transit.
Billy: I was characterzing the transit that you recommend, not saying that you admitted it was “slow”, “dangerous”, and “wasteful” transit.
“billy” says:
“Hey, Grant!
Any comments on the substance of my comments, or do you agree with them?”
No, “billy” I am not addressing your comments. I am simply wondering, why the sudden pseudonym? After the election, when you join Terry Parker in the dustbin of 10% candidates, will you go back to you real name? And if so, will you continue to call people out for using anonymous tag lines, as has been your wont over the years? It will be fascinating.
I would have voted for you if I lived in your district. But “billy?” Come on, guy…
Bob – just a point of curiosity: don’t sock puppets violate Rule #3?
Yes.
To clarify: Pseudonyms are allowed as long as the person involved sticks with one, and does not engage in sock-puppetry.
Can we use “meat puppetry?”
hehe…..
Can we use “meat puppetry?”
We might need to ask the Kurtwoods for the use of their trademark.
Jeff F. wrote: However, I still do not understand what that has to do with much of anything. Your response seems pretty defensive, as though you thought anyone was being critical of people who lived in the suburbs.
What has what to do with anything? Costco? I didn’t bring it up (someone else brought up that Costco’s gas stations don’t accept cash and a reference to a complaint I had made about TriMet’s WES TVMs not accepting cash.) How far I am from a Costco? I didn’t bring that up either (someone else made the comment about people living five miles away from a Costco.)
Why are you singling me out for responding to a post that someone else addressed; rather than the person who originated the discussion of Costco – which, to be specific, would be:
October 30, 2008 8:37 PM
billy Says:
Followed by:
October 30, 2008 10:06 PM
Bob R. Says:
Followed by:
October 31, 2008 3:01 AM
billy Says:
Followed by:
October 31, 2008 3:14 AM
billy Says:
Followed by:
October 31, 2008 6:33 AM
Jeff F Says:
Followed by:
October 31, 2008 10:02 AM
Bob R. Says:
Only then did I post, in which my post was actually related to Bob’s comment about my previously stated concerns about WES machines not taking cash, and I made a comment that comparing Costco and TriMet are irrelevant.
As to your concerns that I am being defensive, I do not feel my comments were intended to be “defensive”. I was only pointing out that the Pearl District is not the center of the universe (or Portland, for that matter) and that Costco stores can be very beneficial towards those who want to be more environmentally conscious – if you live in Beaverton, it can make sense to stock up on goods at Costco (which requires fewer trips to the store, uses less packaging, and is closer to your home).
That isn’t being defensive… But since you are directing a comment towards me, I have every right to respond back. Now if you have any other concerns about discussion of Costco, please direct it to the seven previous posters who brought it up, not to your most convenient target.
As a reminder, that would be Billy, Bob R. and…drumroll, please…Jeff F. Speaking of which, what does your post of October 31, 2008 6:33 AM have to do about anything – especially since it had nothing to do with any prior post and your opening statement, “This is undoubtedly a digression“? And you’re asking ME about this digression?!!!)
I didn’t bring it up (someone else brought up that Costco’s gas stations don’t accept cash and a reference to a complaint I had made about TriMet’s WES TVMs not accepting cash.)
Just to be clear, I did not mention you by name, and you weren’t the only person to have complained about WES’s ticket machine policy. And, importantly, I think you were correct to complain… my point is not that TriMet is doing the right thing here with WES, it’s that Costco (for good or for bad) doing basically the same thing.
For anyone who wants to see where I stand regarding TriMet and ticket machines, please refer to this Portland Mercury Article from July.
Erik Halstead:
That isn’t being defensive… But since you are directing a comment towards me, I have every right to respond back. Now if you have any other concerns about discussion of Costco, please direct it to the seven previous posters who brought it up, not to your most convenient target.
It wasn’t a question of convenience, Erik. What seemed defensive to me was the tone, and this remark is the sort of thing I was getting at: “I was only pointing out that the Pearl District is not the center of the universe”
What does the Pearl District have to do with much of anything?
JK: Wind power integrates very nicely into the Pacific Northwest’s power grid. Most of our hydroelectric plants don’t need to/can’t run at full power every minute of the day, they vary their output over the course of the day to meet demand and then conserve water during the periods of low demand. Estimates put the amount of energy that could be supplied by wind power at around 30% in the NW, with the investment in “standby capacity” being simply improvements in switchgear at the dams, (no idling natural gas power plants.)
Solar produces less on cloudy days, correct. But the sunny days in the middle of summer is when the most electricity is consumed. You can argue that better building designs would reduce that, (by reducing/eliminating the need for air conditioning,) and I’d agree, but until we get around to rebuilding all of our buildings, the fact that solar doesn’t make electricity in the middle of the night or on cloudy days isn’t actually a problem, the wholesale cost of electricity at those times is almost free anyways because of very low demand.
The real question is: Could Solar+Wind+Existing Hydro produce all of our electricity needs in the NW? Probably not, the generation and consumption might not match up exactly, and so we’d probably need smart meters too, and guess what? PGE is rolling those out right now.