I think this is a step in the right direction but I have some reservations about Canola. Did you know that crops growing anywhere near canola can cross polinate and the yield goes WAY down? So in essence, we'll have fuel for our cars but no food to eat. Sounds like a great plan Biodiesel for the buses that carry 2-3 people around being horribly inefficient. What we need is 100% electric vehicles and increased power production using clean sources like wind, solar and nuclear.

Anything that sticks it to big oil gets a 'yes' vote from me!

Plus, thin about it, our highways and roads are going to smell like french fries! Er...uh.. I mean FREEDOM FRIES!

And are you kidding me? No true-red capitalist should be opposing these bills. All the biofuel folks wants to do is enter the market fair-and-square, and give consumers a choice, what is wrong with that?

Plus, our highways and roadways are going to smell like french fries.....

Ross

The argument against canola based on cross-pollination is getting really old.

If there are appropriate measures taken by farmers in all sides, then there will be no problems. The state has been addressing this and other farmers have been addressing this. The issue is that we need to make sure that no small time yahoos screw it up by planting an acre of canola in the middle of the valley...

And which busses have 2 to 3 people on them? The busses I ride are always packed... Most of the time standing room only.

But it doesn't take many people on a bus to make it more efficient than a car. Now if they would just improve coverage for cross-town trips.

Blah blah. Certainly there are more pressing matters to attend to, re: the environment and Oregon, no? Oregon Dems are sadly not looking so hot right out of the gate. Passing and trumping opposition-less initiatives that help the global environment, while ignoring the true LOCAL problems (where opposition will be fierce) is so much politics. Next I bet they will pass some "Internet predator" law. And then maybe some "identity theft" law. Wow, how brave and bold.

(Indeed, note that Atkinson-supporter Ross Day supports it. Where are the truly aggressive Dems willing to make Ross Day turn beet red with bold legislation?)

Peter: Do tell what "brave and bold" legislation did Karen Minnis and the republican pass during the last session?

Fact is, this Biodiesal bill would not have even made it out of committee. Minnis held back more bills and refused debate on more issues, environmental or otherwise, than any other sessions in the history of Oregon politics.

One would have thought that controlling all 3 bodies would have prompted the Dems to be bolder than their incredibly dull and lily-livered "roadmap for oregon", where such Dateline-hyped things like internet predators, identity theft, and "cutting gov't waste" are trumped. When we look at the current situation in Oregon, it seems that, oh I dunno, Measure 37's impacts are far more pressing than the latter.

I was sorta expecting some JFK-like New Frontier proposals... you know, like increasing the public's right to access and use private property (a la the Countryside Act in the UK)...

Gee Peter, M37 was voted in, for all intents and purposes, twice in the past ten years. Yet, you still want to deny the voters of their say and their property rights. How progressive of you.

Identity theft is a huge problem, costing the country millions every year. And reducing government waste, well let's just say that ain't gonna happen in this legislature. However, it would be a great idea.

Oregon's business climate is the joke of the nation. Cutting waste and relaxing land use restrictions would be a major boon to our substandard economy.

Gee Peter, M37 was voted in, for all intents and purposes, twice in the past ten years.

You might want to check recent polling, sir. I think you will find that an about-face is pretty evident now that Oregonians have seen the true consequences of M37, passed by a misleading campaign.

Identity theft is a huge problem, costing the country millions every year.

Says who? And by what measure? It seems to me that identity theft is mostly a media concoction pumped up by a few egregious cases. Much like the Japanese buying Rockefeller Center brought waves of media concern about Japan "owning" the US.

Chris: "Cutting waste ... " Oh that old, nebulous boogieman "waste."

Please tell me exactly "waste" are you refering to? Please site department, dollar amount, and percentage of budget that amount represents.

With regards to our substandard economy - compared to who? Can you site your facts and ranking of Oregon's economy including employment rate, average wage, and other economic factors that draw you to this conclusion. If Oregon is truly the "joke of the nation" as you put it, I imagine we are ranked dead last in all areas of economic concerns.

Oregon's business climate is the joke of the nation. Cutting waste and relaxing land use restrictions would be a major boon to our substandard economy.

Nonsense. California has some of the highest taxes, the most regulations, and the most restrictive land use practices in the country, if not the world. And yet California continues to lead the US in terms of economic growth. Compare that to, say, Mississippi with the least taxes, the least regulations, the least land use restrictions... well, you get the idea. If ANYTHING, there is a positive correlation between regulations and business climate.

I, for one, look forward to having an easier time filling up my Mercedes Wagon with Biodiesel, while I use these green-building incentives to construct a new sustainable dwelling.

I don't know how you could get more local than that.

Thanks, Oregon Dems, for delivering something that's actually useful for a change.

cheers, ~Garlynn

Wait, please don't let this one sail by unnoticed:

I was sorta expecting some JFK-like New Frontier proposals... you know, like increasing the public's right to access and use private property (a la the Countryside Act in the UK)...

Where the hell did that come from and how exactly is it a progressive cause? And, dear lord, please tell me how it is a more urgent issue than Internet predators or ID theft?!

PB: I was sorta expecting some JFK-like New Frontier proposals... you know, like increasing the public's right to access and use private property (a la the Countryside Act in the UK)...

abc: Where the hell did that come from and how exactly is it a progressive cause? And, dear lord, please tell me how it is a more urgent issue than Internet predators or ID theft?!

"Internet predators" are almost 99% hype, via crap like Dateline. ID theft is not much better.

Most developed countries offer the public access to private property via "right to roam" mandates. For example, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act:

"The Act (sometimes called (the CRoW Act) ) implements the so-called 'Right to Roam' (also known as Jus Spatiendi) long sought by the Ramblers' Association and its predecessors, on certain upland and uncultivated areas of England and Wales."

This was the one that pissed of Madonna and her male concubine:

"The Countryside Rights of Way Act allows ramblers the right to roam 18,130 sq km (7,000 sq miles) over mountain, moor, heath and down in England and Wales.

In December anyone will be able to get within 100 yards of Madonna's £9m, 1,200-acre Georgian retreat, Ashcombe, in Wiltshire. "

Benelux and Scandinavian countries go even further in granting public access rights to private property, allowing individuals to gather firewood, camp, etc.

It's about time we SHIFT the notion of private property rights to public rights on that private property. We already had a bit of this in past sessions, with debates about, for instance, boaters having access to streams and rivers and low-water marks.

We need to move the mark to more access for the public to private lands. The US is unique among developed countries in this regard, and the tide will certainly shift towards conforming to international standards.

Legalizing trespassing is your big JFK New Frontier idea? Bzzzzzttt. Try again.

Bold progressive initiatives that shock the system and that stand no chance of passing, but which would set the bar for future sessions, are the hallmarks of JFK's New Frontier.

His goals set the stage for the Great Society. In the 1960s to propose equal rights for various subclasses was a massively momentous change. THAT WAS progressive. Following Dateline to crack down on "Internet predators" and "ID theft" is NOT progressive. It is insipid.

JFK proposed no such land use laws, of course, but he proposed radical civil rights measures that were shot down rather dramatically (only to be reincarnated by Johnson). To reset the whole land use perspective, we need to look at land more in terms of the public right, rather than so-called individual "property rights".

All things happen incrementally, and it is about time that Oregonians have access to the lands that, HISTORICALLY, the public always had access to.

In Utah, and other states, the State is arguing that rarely used trails grant them, the State, the right to violate Wilderness statutes to establish roads, etc. In counterpart, in the West, the public has had a long established tradition of paths, trails, and general access to all lands, public and "private", particularly in eastern counties. Such established precedence could be used to similarly argue for general access to now private lands.

More, as hunters and anglers are increasingly denied access to private lands, we will see an increasing movement to open up those private lands to public access. Such is already happening in Montana with many Hollywood "ranchers" denying historical access to fish and hunt their lands. Whether or not Oregon will recognize this trend is anyone's guess. Actually, no it's not. The Dems in Oregon have demonstrated little spine. (After all, they've already given away the farm, quite literally, when it comes to Measure 37.)

Peter, sticking it to political foes may be satisfying, but it's poor politics and self-defeating.

Of course I am not arguing to "stick" anyone, but rather to aggressively tackle what they have been unable to previously, and not to take-up absolutely stupid legislation simply because they know it can easily pass. Democracy IS about opposition. It is not about feel-good crap that everyone can agree on.

If you look at the history of state/federal congresses, anytime very bipartisan bills are INITIALLY passed, the remaining session typically accomplishes nothing. Such initial bipartisan action is almost always a sign of weakness or foolishness. It is typically only those congresses that are immediately and dramatically split that, while perhaps failing many times, get anything of consequence passed. While the Dem bodies can carry water for Kulongoski's sleepy goals, they might try to generate an agenda that actually excites people, rather than assuming that mirroring primetime tv will pass muster in 2 years.

Great bill. Good work.

Amazingly, House Republican "Leader" Wayne Scott voted against this great bill. Unbelievable.

After watching the federal biofuel program for a few months, it appears that the majority of tax credits and subsidy money are going to the same old suspects - agribusiness giants, oil companies, and a few well-connected speculators who plan to earn huge fees while using other people's money to promote construction of biofuel plants which will never make a profit in the absence of permanent subsidies.

If Oregon wants to spend money chasing biofuels, they should put the money into supporting basic scientific research at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Until science "unlocks" a cost-effective, non-polluting and practical method of extracting usable energy from waste biomass (not food crops!), the whole biofuel movement is nothing more than a feel-good diversion.

I would urge some of you to read the bills. Scientific research into the types of biofuel feedstocks is now on it's way. OSU will likely be leading the way with the Crop and Soil Science division.

These bills provide a market for all oilseed crops and to those those who collect them. Canola, camelina, wheat, sunflowers and I have heard of several farmers that are exploring flax and other crops will be a part of our low carbon fuel future.

These bills also provide a market and incentives for biomass and ag wastes to fuel projects so that perhaps we can begin a dialogue around a saner forest management policy as well and bring cellulosic ethanol here in the next two years.

In the past 6 months $350 million in venture capital money has gone to alternative fuel projects and now some of those facilities will have a tax credit for their capital costs and will locate to our state.

The whole food debate is silly. People were going hungry before biofuels and no one is going to starve if some crop rotations (which incidentally improve the soils and makes other crops stronger)start to become a player on the fuel scene.

I applaud the house for their leadership.

Kevin C

Am I the only person that thinks french-fry smellin' freeways and roads is a great reason to vote for the biofuels bill?

Seriously, I disagree that this is a "controversial-less" bill. From my understanding of the issue, until now, the science wasn't exactly set on the utility of biofuels. Now that we seem to know beyond a reasonable certainty that biofuels work, it seems to me that the time is now.

By the way, I understand they are using immature poplar trees grown in eastern Oregon for biofuels - not just "cross-pollinated corn". Apparently the density of immature poplars is perfect for making biofuels.

My point is that the cross-pollination argument is a bit passe, given the fact that many organic products are being used to manufacture biofuels.

Ross

Well I tried riding your wonderful "mass transit" system today. I am trying to be "open minded" and "progressive". What a joke it was! It was jam packed at 9 in the morning and the wonderful smell of booze and cigarettes permeated the air. I was panhandled by 4 bums. I heard loud insulting language by scum bags. An elderly lady had to stand while these idiots who don't even speak English were sitting in the "priveleged seats". I got to PCC and transferred to another bus. The bus driver after about 2 miles realized he was going the wrong way so he made everyone get off the bus. Well to make matters worse, the "stop" wasn't even at a designated bus stop so the next bus which was right behind us blew past us and we had to wait another 15 minutes for the next one. I finally got to where I needed to - about 40 minutes late. Then I went to my next errand in Hillsboro. It took about an hour and a half to get to Hillsboro from Tigard Transit Center. Again, I had to deal with slimebags, many of them didn't speak English. I even witnessed one individual hock a loogie and spit on the floor. I took issue with it and he retorted back by saying to "go F myself". Then I got back into Downtown Portland and did some more errands. Then I waited for the max... and I waited and waited and waited. 30 minutes went by before a MAX train finally arrived. They want to cram this concept of "livability" down our throats, I tried it and I think it's insulting that they expect us to live like homeless bums in the interest of "saving the environment". What is "livable" and "progressive" about this???? This town sucks!

GT: "while these idiots who don't even speak English" ... "Again, I had to deal with slimebags, many of them didn't speak English."

How dare they ride the bus!

GT: This town sucks!

Might I suggest Coeur d'Alene?

We are in America, people should learn to speak ENGLISH! Over the years many immigrants made the arduous journey, came here, worked hard and learned to speak English. These "new immigrants" are an insult to those who worked so hard to learn and assimilate into our society. These "new immigrants" are ruining our country, being selfish and lowering our standards. I went to Hillsboro Court today to take care of a traffic ticket. The Mexicans vastly outnumbered everyone else there. Are they the new majority or just the ones doing criminal acts and demanding we all speak Spanish for their benefit and laziness?

What remarkably foolish statements.

Why are they foolish statements? Is it because it runs contrary to your liberal attitude that says we should tolerate anything that people do and not expect any accountability whatsoever?

The “bio” in biofuel obviously means twice as much fuel burned and discharged into the atmosphere since it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy produced. Ethanol and ethanol blends also reduce fuel mileage when used in most motor vehicles.

Is it that con artists are conning the legislature about biofuels, or is it that the con artists pushing the ethanol façade reside in the legislature?

Maybe there should be a requirement in Oregon that the EPA mileage standards posted on new vehicles show both the gasoline standards and the standards when ethanol or an ethanol bled is used instead of gasoline. The latter MPG will be lower.

Ross Day --

"All the biofuel folks wants to do is enter the market fair-and-square, and give consumers a choice, what is wrong with that?"

The biofuel folks are hardly entering the market "fair-and-square" with the kind of public financing they will be receiving via "incentives".

Scott in Damascus--

"With regards to our substandard economy ... Can you site your facts ... that draw you to this conclusion."

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/

While not exactly "dead last" Oregon's economy is substandard.

BlueNote--

"Until science "unlocks" a cost-effective, non-polluting and practical method of extracting usable energy from waste biomass (not food crops!), the whole biofuel movement is nothing more than a feel-good diversion."

Thoughtful.

Kevin C--

"The whole food debate is silly. People were going hungry before biofuels and no one is going to starve if some crop rotations (which incidentally improve the soils and makes other crops stronger)start to become a player on the fuel scene."

Tell that to the Mexican's protesting the increased price of corn.

All-- See While Oregon’s Economy Still a Gamble, Leaders Demonstrate Sensitivity with Unequitable “Renew Oregon Plan”

<h2>rightOregon</h2>