until people focus on population, and reducing the numbers of additional bodies we're putting on Planet Earth each moment, everything else is just a stop-gap measure. Smaller families, access to contraception, medically-accurate sex education, more money for reproductive healthcare, education for women and girls, economic opportunities for women and girls - all of these have been shown to reduce population numbers. Then there's the 1-child policy. The way we as USers eat, and use up the world's resources makes the US population growth problem 300million to 400million in the next 40 years - the world's problem.

The biggest thing we can do to reduce CO2 is to shut down ALL coal burning and replace with nuclear.

Oh, and don't forget that CO2 did not start previous warmings as shown in antarctic ice cores, something unknown did.(realclimate.org/index.php?p=13) And CO2 causes at most 30% of the warming (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142) Of course man emits only a tiny fraction of that.

Oh, and the science journals are still publishing articles that conflict with man caused warming. Here is a eight page list of peer-reviewed articles: http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

Thanks JK

"The biggest thing we can do to reduce CO2 is to shut down ALL coal burning and replace with nuclear."

True, but lets not go hog wild constructing new nuclear plants. They should be a part of the equation, but we need to be heading toward a mixed power infrastructure that also includes wind, wave, solar and other more sustainable, less polluting technologies. We damn sure need to begin weaning ourselves from fossil fuels and make some incremental changes in our collective habits. Speculation about the effects of CO2, human contributions and global warming doomsday scenarios aside, I'd like to think most of us can agree that we can and should do better...if we choose to.

I doubt it will do much good for us to attempt to reduce hydrocarbon emissions so long as recently industrialized nations such as China continue to pump astronomical amounts of HC's in the air.

I know someone who recently returned from Shanghai and he said the air was so polluted he couldn't see the stars at night even outside of the city. And, the stench was overpowering. All that bad air comes our way eventually.

For thirty years or more, global warming's reality manifested mainly as an unspoken dread among those of us who wondered why the daffodils kept blooming earlier each year.

Please, Jeff, don't fall into the "daffodils are blooming early this year" trap. Or the "Boy, it's a hot August we're having, isn't it?" trap. Or even the "Snowpack is down this year" trap.

There is a big difference between weather and climate. Things like daffodils and snowpack in any given year are weather barometers, and have no relation to the changing climate. (If you were in fact referring to a 100-year study of daffodil blooms that shows they are, on average, blooming earlier, than I apologize.)

The reason we who believe the science on global warming need to adhere religiously to strict objectivity on this point is to counter those who inevitably write to the local newspaper whenever there is a cold spell or a high snowpack (2005-06) or an inactive hurricane season (2006) and claim that global warming must be a myth.

It's convenient and easy to use short-term data to illustrate the point, but it undermines the larger argument.

Jeff Alworth Jim, if you're going to argue climate science (and I wish you wouldn't), at least stick to real scientists. Front groups for petroleum companies make poor sources. JK: You have to be kidding - right? Are not capable of looking at a list of peer reviewed articles that appear to contradict your pet theory and checking a few on line (like I did) to determine that they are pretty much as claimed?

Of course, by your standard, AL Gore is just an unbelievable a fool because he is selling mutual fund shares that profit from the warming scare. See generationim.com/about/team.html

Thanks JK

I don't want to get caught in the "daffodils-are-early-this-year" trap, but can one point to global warming as increasing the number of pleasant spring days in Oregon, like the one we had today? I'm sure it's something one can measure. I'm used to nasty, rainy springs year after year, extending all the way through June-and then dry weather from July through most of October. Has this been changing, or is my perception colored by the news about global warming? Somebody should know this.

Riding my bike around town today, I was struck with the idea that there might be a feedback effect with warming that mitigates it. There must have been tens of thousands of people on bikes in Portland today. More people on bikes, less pollution. Okay, on examination, that doesn't stand up because even if you tripled the number of bike commuters in Portland--the leading bike city in the country--that would boost the number to around 8%. Not enough to have much of an impact. But if the earth is getting warmer, does that mean there is less need for home heating, and thus less need for coal-fired plants? Or is that offset by the need for more air conditioning?

I don't want to get caught in the "daffodils-are-early-this-year" trap, but can one point to global warming as increasing the number of pleasant spring days in Oregon, like the one we had today?

Too late. Better chew your leg off and escape.

Friday was gorgeous, but I doubt that has much of anything to do with climate change. We also broke a record low earlier in the week. Is that an early sign of the coming ice age? It's rather wintry in in the Northeast too. What further anecdotal evidence do I need?

Miles was correct. Short term meteorological observations have little correlation with long range climate models. Unfortunately, people are being conditioned to react sensitively to warmer days while ignoring colder or average periods. Warm bad! Cold good! Think I'll enjoy it while it lasts, as it looks like were in for another cool, dreary week.

is anyone buying "Carbon Credits" like Al gore and John Edwards? I mean why change you lifestyle when you can just buy these credits. I had plans to sell my truck and buy a prius, but have since decided to purchase a few credits and just keep the truck.

I'm glad there is such a vast, available record of BS from this enormous lesson in irrational pandamonium. As the science and years stack up against the frenzy it will be a jolly read to go back and check out these absolutist opinions which are mascarading as lofty "peer reviewed" and conclusive facts. The naivety, foolishness, fanatasism, dishonesty and irrationality that ushers along this GW parade should eventually cause many in the parade to rethink their critical thinking skills. But it won't. Long before the the entire planet has lost interest in this current GW farce these same people will have moved to another asinine group think pretending to be science. So off and irrational this group mind is the nest pandamonium could even be Global Cooling. Right now I feel compelled to just tell them to shut up. But that's probably too means o I won't.

There's a pair of Osprey nesting about sixty yards off my deck, as I write covering and uncovering eggs to accomidate an unusual high desert rain, easily a month early. If you can't see it happening all around you, you're not qualified to comment.

"If you can't see it happening all around you, you're not qualified to comment."

Now that was a zinger. Tell me, what is "it"? What have you imagined?

--"those of us who have read and understand the science"

Yeah Jeff, just like those of YOU who knew and understood the law, wisdom and brilliance in the Judge Mary Merten James' M37 ruling. When you are shown to be as utterly wrong with your pretense of science and opinion on human caused Global Warming as you were with James & M37 will you respond the same way? With more pretense and no admition of being misguided?

Bad enough that the usual vultures are diving in on the same putrid carcass of demonizing science, but quit the brain-dead attempts to deflect the thread, Robert.

you want to do something personally about global climate change?

Go plant a tree. Then donate money to a local tree planting group in your city, like Portland's Friends of Trees. Or go lobby your city councilors and state legislators to set aside money to plant trees in our cities. Did you know that for every $1 invested in city trees, $2.70 worth of benefits is returned (US Forest Service research).

For a state that has as such great forests as Oregon does, it is a shame that the most common tree in our cities is the Douglas-fir on our license plates.

By the way, today is the end of Oregon's Arbor Week...as if you really needed another reason to plant trees.

"vultures,, putrid carcass of demonizing science, brain-dead attempts to deflect the thread"

Ok a vulture, if that makes you feel good, challenging the Al Gore brand of science, the IPCC agenda and the "peer review" which you selectively use.

It's not "deflecting the thread" to give another similar example of very wrong thinking. When I used the James' ruling it was a perfect example to rub it in. One, because it's the same people here posessed by the GW hysteria as those who were so horribly wrong in lauding Judge James' judicial science. And two, what better "peer review" than to have the Oregon Supreme Court unanimously "peer review" in opposition to James. Now here we go down another path lined with the exact same type of rhetoric and condemnation of those who don't share your wrong headed and narrow thinking. Yet it is I who is brain dead? We'll see in a year or two what happenes to "your" science. When it falls apart and you once again are revealed for being confused I'll be only to happy to rub it in again. But we can still be friends.

The Oregonian had an item today mentioning this report:

Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

It is available as a PDF here.

By the way, per peer review in science: this is something I have 25+ years of professional experience with in the geophysical literature. It is arguably the primary self-correcting mechanism in the scientific enterprise. Imperfect, of course, but pretty damn useful. When abandoned it leads to the sort of chaos one sees in the blogosphere.

Another rally? That's what we can do?? Jeeez.

I thought you really were going to suggest a solution. What was I thinking?

lin qiao Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

It is available as a PDF here. [http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf] JK: But lin, that is the “Summary for Policymakers” that, critics claim, is written by the politicians. We need the real report - the one written by the scientists.

BTW is this report “peer reviewed”?

Thanks JK

"When abandoned it leads to the sort of chaos one sees in the blogosphere."

OK then tell me why it isn't chaos when Portland releases a report claiming emissions reduction and they have no legitimate study or peer review? And it's gets repeated as gospel??????? There' chaos and there's BS -)

Get ready to eat crow. You must be developing an aquired taste for it.

Forcaster blasts Gore http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

lin qiao Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

It is available as a PDF here. [http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf] JK: Thanks.
BTW is this report “peer reviewed”?

That seems to be the “Summary for Policymakers” which, critics claim, is written by the politicians. I presume you have read the full report, so can give us a link.

Thanks JK

Mr, Karlock, the summary for policy makers is what is presently available. The timeline for the release of all the IPCC reports is described on the main IPCC website. As for peer review, of course these reports are peer reviewed. I do not serve on any IPCC panels; if you want details as to how the IPCC does peer review, I suggest you contact some panelists. You could look here, for example, for Congressional testimony a couple of months ago by some panelists. The 4 people who testified are, I believe, from the following institutions:

Susan Solomon--MIT Kevin Trenberth--National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado Richard Alley--Penn State Gerald Meehl--also NCAR, Boulder

OH, important detail, there are several IPCC summaries for policymakers, dealing variously with the science, impacts, and mitigation. (Separate working groups, as I understand it.) Again, the main IPCC website lays it all out. The scientific summary came out in February (and the Congressional testimony mentioned above pertains to that). The latest, released a few days ago, is "impacts, adaptation and vulnerability". I'll let readers scrutinize the authorship list for themselves.

I'm sure the Portland City Council will be at your rally. Oregon's DC reps will be there, at least in spirit. Everyone in the US knows what the politically active in Portland and Berkley think. Have a rally in Omaha or Saint Louis, if you want to start something new. You're preaching to the choir here.

I did read it. Oregon's policy makers are already with you. Civil rights activists were most effective when they traveled South.

Re daffodils: The issue is contentious enough with cranks like Karlock trying to muddy the water--those of us who have read and understand the science don't need to be sniping at each other about the way we talk about it. Same team. I hope to see you at the rally.

I'm just asking you to be careful and exacting in your arguments. The daffodils illustration was first made by Kristof in the NY Times, and subsequently ridiculed by the right, and now it shows up here. Similarly, lots of environmentalists seized on last year's prediction of a monster Atlantic hurricane season as more evidence of global warming, only to be forced to backtrack when it turned out to be one of the mildest seasons on record. If we're sloppy, it kills any momentum towards change.

Another thing: referring to the other side as "cranks" doesn't help. It's not illegitimate to question the degree to which human activity is the cause of global warming (is it 10%, 50%, or 90% of the problem?), nor to question the economic and social impact of any government-mandated solution. I know that since this is Blue Oregon we just expect it to be a liberal echo chamber, but seriously, let's develop some persuasive arguments that don't just insult the other side. Maybe then we'll get the change you're looking for.

Jeff, off topic, but... maybe the word "flippantly" was what you were looking for.

JK, I'm not saying global warming is or isn't real, but I think it would be great if you were to present your case by using peer-reviewed materials.

JK, And CO2 causes at most 30% of the warming (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142) Of course man emits only a tiny fraction of that. If humans warm the Earth zero degrees or 100, I think it's important to understand the implications of what you've written. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you as saying that man emits very little of the global CO2, so it's not very important in the big picture.

If that's what you're saying, I have a problem with that logic. There are computer models that predict what levels of atmospheric CO2 will pose a problem. The problem level is just a few percentage points above the normal level, and man has been demonstrated fairly conclusively to have nudged the CO2 levels to the hypothetical tipping point. Even though we may not be a very big percent of the CO2 emissions, we can be the factor that tips the scale, the straw that breaks the camel's back, the... you get the picture.

Anyway, are the computer models accurate? I sure don't want to find out the hard way! On the other hand, even if we don't have any impact on how warm this planet is, I know that pollution is a real problem, and that Uranium will eventually run out just like oil and coal eventually will. Even though I think nuclear power is a decent way to buy time, I think we should cut back on oil and coal energy production.

Kari, Are you really that narrow? Or liberal?

"So What?"

So it's OK to perpetrate a massive fraud because it's for good stuff that doesn't cost much? Bingo. Unfortunately the cost is enormous as it involves far more than your little "footprint" characterization. I suspect you know that but care little what it truly costs. Just as you care little about the truth of the human caused GW pandamonium. This is an interesting, frequently used but rarely revealed approach allowing an agenda to take any form, be dishonest and wrong as can be and still be declared worthy and a success. We see this approach around here with education reforms, property rights opponents, light rail transit, land use planning, Urban Renewal and other costly manipulations. You have certainly defined your confort zone. Where the truth is optional.

Here's another crank for you to ignore http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Don't go read this if you prefer the truth.

Did y'all hear Dennis Miller on Comedy radio last week.

And I'm paraphrasing, " todays temperature is 67 degrees. I'm going to convert this temperature to what it will most likely be in 2107 using my global warming calculator....Let's see, add three, carry the 2, divide by the square root...ya, today would be 68 degrees".

Pretty funny stuff. Shines a light on the silly position of all of your global warming socialists.

Miles, I was unaware of the Friedman controversy.

You must have done some research, then, because I mistakenly attributed it to Kristof. Thanks for catching the error.

I was speaking about the early arrival of spring, heraled in Oregon by the first blooming bulb, the daffodil (anyway, the first in my yard).

My point here is eloquently expressed in this relevant essay (so relevant, in fact, that one might accuse me of reading it first and trying to pass it off as my own -- but I swear I didn't see it until 5 minutes ago!): www.thenation.com/doc/20070226/corcoran

I'm edgy because you wish me to be scrupulously careful about my language and then you write rubbish [that] undermine[s] your credibility. A lot of writers on BlueOregon have taken the issue very seriously. Yet you deride the site as an "echo chamber?" Do your own research before you start pontificating about our failures.

I didn't realize that calling Blue Oregon a liberal echo chamber was controversial. . . I thought that was the point of the site. Nor did I realize that the contributors take themselves so seriously. . . I thought you all were too hip for that. Since I don't have time to go through old posts looking for kernels of wisdom, I kind of expect that when I do read a post on something like global warming, and Jim Karlock puts up a list of countervailing articles, you will post an argument or a link to a previous argument demonstrating why he's wrong. If the best you can do is call him a crank and tell me to look it up myself. . . well, what's the point of Blue Oregon again?

Dan: When I see someone use the words "Dennis Miller" and "pretty funny stuff" in the same paragraph, I pretty much disregard anything one has posted as misinformed.

Jennifer: What exactly is the "massive fraud" being perpetrated? Is it the Toyota producing a well-designed, high-milage automobile that is extremely popular here in Portland or is it the solar panels my neighbor put on his home with a payback rate of 7 years and reduced utility costs after that?

Is this "massive fraud" anything like the "gay agenda" or the "liberal agenda" I keep hearing so much about?

And from your rantings, I see you are anti-land use planning, anti-education reform, anti-public transportation, anti-tree planting, and anti-urban renewal. Are you actual for anything that positive that makes Portland and our surrounding environment a better place to live for everyone?

Scott,

sorry to see you've no sense of humor unless it has been approved by the liberal censors.

As for someone being "anti-education" I'm unable to place that mantle on anyone but the hard core libs that worship at the alter of the Teachers union. If you really are pro-education, you'd stop running scared at the mention of vouchers. You realize that if voucers are part of a parents choice to try and improve the education of her child, then the teachers union won't be so apt to make contributions to the Democratic party. And yes, it is JUST THAT SIMPLE!

Dan: I have a great sense of humor, but unlike Mr. Miller I don't have a string of failed, crappy, infotainment "news" shows featuring Michele Malkin and other Limpbuagh wanna-be's.

And though the topic is Global Warming, I'll have to give you an "F" for your subtle hijacking of the thread to the evil teachers union. However I'm more than happy to play because vouchers are just too easy of a target. Maybe you've seen one of the many reports that have come out regarding the failure, complete and total failure, of the voucher system? One that comes to mind Replicating Failure: Colorado Vouchers Mimic Other States’ Mistakes. The report cites among other things:

• the high potential for abuse inherent in voucher programs, and examines parallels with the problems other cities and states have experienced with voucher laws, including Cleveland, Milwaukee and Florida.

• highlights accounts of unreliable educational standards, the potential for discrimination against students, and a lack of accountability in both fiscal management and student performance, can be downloaded here.

• since private voucher schools can “cherry-pick” students, most of the benefit goes to those schools, hence, vouchers do not serve the vast majority of the neediest children.

• the number of available seats in private schools is limited and student admission is prioritized by past enrollment and by sibling enrollment.

• private voucher schools have been found to discriminate against certain students based on disability, sexual orientation, English language proficiency or past behavioral problems.

• voucher programs lack fiscal and academic accountability, which lead to incidents of corruption and mismanagement and can even risk student health and safety.

• unlike public schools, private schools do not have to comply with open record laws, open their books to the public, or report school achievement data.

But hey, let's demonize "the teacher's union" because after earning a BA in Education, an MA in their core subject, and 25 years of service in a public school they just might want a decent severence package. Yeah, it's just that simple.

Kari Chisholm Jim, I'll pose my question again:

Let's say that all the global warming theorists are wild-ass wrong, and we've all needlessly bought Priuses, and reduced our carbon emissions, and planted trees, etc.

So what? What's the harm in all that? Is there something bad that happens when we reduce our footprint on the Earth? JK: Sorry, I thought I answered this a while back on another thread:

I think it is a fallacy to believe that we can reduce our carbon emissions without a substantial increase in the cost of energy. That will hurt people, especially the low income. So, I believe we should be damn sure that: 1. Global warming is actually occurring. 2. It is a bad thing. 3. It is man caused to a degree that changing our ways can reduce it.

My opinion of the answers are:

<h1>1 is probably yes.</h1> <h1>2 is un proven (cold winters kill more than warm summers.)</h1> <h1>3 is un proven to a degree that justifies hurting a lot of people, especially the low income, to reduce CO2.</h1>

The more I look at #3, the more I am thinking that this could be a corporate conspiracy. First Enron hopped on the Keyto protocols since they, presumably, saw it as a way to kill of their competitor, coal and sell natural gas which emits less CO2 per unit of energy than coal.

Recently the nuclear advocates have hopped on the bandwagon, making me wonder if this industry is now putting big time $$$ into warming support. Some environmental groups appear to be endorsing nuclear as the way to reduce CO2.

The one exception to reducing CO2 causing increasing prices is probably nuclear, which I think can be done safely, say in eastern Oregon where there is little population and a desire for high paying jobs.

Reducing CO2 in transport will likely get people killed or waste money depending on wether we opt for smaller cars (more dangerous) or hybrids (more expensive). Any money wasted is money that could be better spent elsewhere: On waterfront condos for millionaires , low income housing, education or just on your own family, depending on your values.

I see a lot of people looking forward to the changes required to reduces CO2 as if they will some how improve our lives. They won’t:

These people say that forcing others into high density will reduce CO2. I say prove it. These people say that forcing others into mass transit will reduce CO2. I say prove it. These people say that killing the suburbs will reduce CO2. I say prove it.

I say these things because these are merely another round of promises from the same group that has been making provable false promises for years: False promise: High Density will reduce traffic congestion. False promise: High Density will reduce cost. False promise: High Density will give us affordable housing False promise: Mass transit saves money False promise: Light rail causes development. False promise: A single light rail line can carry as many people as a ten lane freeway False promise: People want high density (see DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/SmartGrowthLies.html for the proof)

So, you can see why I am skeptical of the new set of claims. All I see is a common goal to spend more money on politically connected condo builders and light rail suppliers.

Here is some background information: Most of our energy comes from combustion. Combustion is combining oxygen, from the air ,with a fuel to produce heat and waste gasses. Oxygen plus hydrogen gives energy and H2O (water.) Oxygen and carbon gives energy and CO2. To recover the carbon requires putting that energy back (you don’t get something for nothing), so there is no way to get energy and recover the carbon.

There are unproven schemes to take the CO2 from a smoke stack and “sequester it”. That is unlikely to happen on a grand scale. I have heard of no other way to get energy from fossil fuels and not put out CO2. (You can choose fuels that have more hydrogen and less carbon, but that’s about it). That leaves only so called renewables, hydro and nuclear:

Solar is extremely costly, so any solar electric program will raise the cost of electricity.

Wave power is still just a dream. Forget it in the foreseeable future.

Wind power is economically competitive, but, like solar, is intermittent, which means you still have to have a power plant on standby. The duplication of generating capacity will increase the cost until such time as the fuel savings makes up for the plant duplication.

Nuclear appears viable, except politically. (But even some environmentalists are starting to realize that this is the only viable way to reduce CO2.)

(Hydrogen is a non-starter as there is no source of hydrogen - it is made from electricity or from coal by taking the O out of H2O to form H2 and CO2. But the point was to not make CO2!)

Factoid: there are a number of burning coal mines in china that are big CO2 emitters.

I know of no other way to reduce CO2 emissions unless we restrict travel or shut down industries.

The first thing I see that we can do, without increasing the cost is to put out those coal mine fires.

The next thing is to switch from coal to nuclear. This will also greatly reduce the emissions of uranium, thorium, radium and mercury into the air - all good things. And it may actually reduce the cost of energy.

At that point, I would guess, the USA would be a net CO2 sink. In fact, what is the net carbon position of the USA? (Rush claimed we were already sinking more CO2 that we were emitting).

Thanks JK

Scott in Damascus, Quit playing around. It's obvious I meant the "massive fraud" is the global warnming scare, man's role in it and local BS like the Portland OSD concocting a bogus emissions report to deceitfully justify many of the costly policies around here. A report that all of you bought hook line and stinker without any science, study or "peer review" needed. Planning Damascus will follow in that form and is already an emerging disaster. I can't wait to see the rest of that fantasy unfold. As for land use planning the same local people buying all the GW propaganda are lining up presumptions, hypothetical, distortions and outright lies about M37 so yes I am anti- dishonest land use planning as you likely support it. The same dishonest approach was indeed used by many of the same people to perpetrate CIMCAM education reform. So yes, I am also against dishonest school reform. The same people have used all sorts of dishonesty to hijack transportation planning and turn it into the zealot's ped/bike/rail transit movement at the expense of our entire system's mobility. So yes I am opposed, not to public transportation as you dishonest folks like to pigeon hole the opposition, but to the irrational obsession for rail while neglecting the needs of growth. "Anti-tree planting"? Typical. Just throw in anything you can dream up. I'm all for tree planting. However, the tree planting hasn't even come close to replacing the doug fir losses in the region and has certainly not reduced emissions. That's just more lies you buy. Urban renewal has become the most mismanaged corrupted scheme around devouring millions in basic services dollars, stacking up massive debt and failing to produce anywhere near the promised public benefit justifying the investments. But maybe you think SoWa is swell? If you think all of this broader agenda is all good than have at it. You are only being fooled by the group thinking responsible for waste fraud and abuse around here. When it gets down to genuine specifics, science, facts, budgets and outcomes it's nothing like the theoretical mental vision so many of you share.

Jennifer: You list alot of misinformed opinions and conspiracy theories, but I'll go back to my original question: Are you actual for anything positive that makes Portland and our surrounding environment a better place to live for everyone?

And as far as your comment "planning Damascus is already an emerging disaster," you are so far out of your league you're not even in the same ballpark. In case you couldn't figure it out, I am a property owner in the Damascus/Boring/Pleasant Valley area and couldn't be more pleased with the process to date. I own a small orchard while my neighbors are a mix of horse, light industrial, forest, and farming. My six neighbors and I own a combined total of 110 acres and we collectively are very pleased with the plan to date.

Of course there is a very small minority of people like you that are angry that they can't just convert their land into a flat, bulldozed, mini-development with the exact same house repeated with two colors of brown on 7,000 sf lots. Wow, what a bummer for you - but then again we moved out to the country to avoid just that. If I wanted a Beaverton lifestyle, I'll move there.

I am a property owner in the Damascus/Boring/Pleasant Valley area and couldn't be more pleased with the process to date. I own a small orchard while my neighbors are a mix of horse, light industrial, forest, and farming. My six neighbors and I own a combined total of 110 acres and we collectively are very pleased with the plan to date.

Does this mean that you are selling your land to developers at a fat profit?

Or are the planners leaving you land alone?

Thanks JK

JK: A mix of both. What people don't seem to understand is ALOT of Damascus/Boring/Pleasant Valley is over solid rock (aka the lava domes). When I buried my utilities it cost over $5,000 15 years ago (well worth it to enhance the views). That is why this area was one of the last to be developed - it would be very expensive to install sewer and water.

It really doesn't matter to my neighbors or myself because selling the land vs. developing doesn't make you a millionaire overnight. If I keep my orchard and I'm surrounded by houses in 10 years, I still do fine because there is always a market for a nice house on five acres. Still it doesn't matter because I'm staying put for 5-10 years so the monthly price fluctuations don't phase me - it's a home and not an investment.

Scott, You obviously don't know squat about anything I listed inclduing about Damascus where you live. The Damascus "plan" is in chaos, unfunded, irrational and super polticicized with winners and losers defined by conflicted interests and baffoons at Metro. You are so misinformed you have no understanding that it is Metro who mandates the "flat, bulldozed, mini-development with the exact same house repeated with two colors of brown on 7,000 sf lots" allover the region. And much worse with even higher densities, apshalt, concrete and roofs region wide. All of the worst, overcrowded infill, rat race, chaos development over the past 30 years, throughout the region, has been a result of Metro and other planners. And if you think it isn't coming to Damascus you are crazy. The only misinformed opinions are yours as you avoid reality and pretend that everything going on is making "Portland and our surrounding environment a better place to live for everyone". Your pathetic pigeon holed question is a good demonstration of your inability to apply any independent critical thinking to the various policies and what they truly produce. What a cop out. The perpetual landscape messes at all of our public schools are not "better". Parks without trash cans or lacking in maintenance is not better. Street maintenance lagging further behind is not better. Diverting millions from Parks and PDOT to SoWa is not better. Declining numbers of affordable housing units is not better. Basic services in perpetual fiscal crisis is not better. Neglecting the needs of growth and the soaring cost of congestion is not better. On and on it goes. I take it your Damascus land was not identified for development prohibition while your neighbors are anticipating a windfall through new land use rights and options. Imagine that, unequalled treatment of similar parcels. Gosh, sound a lot like the horror your friends cast about M37. In this case it is Metro picking winners and losers as they always have.

Jennifer: Now you're just spewing. The Damascus Plan has been going on for years with literally 100+ town meetings, debates, area meetings, and the like. Obviously you haven't taken part in any of these based on your diatribe. You obviously haven't taken a look at the map lately or you would understand the difference between a town center, high density, farm use, and greenbelts built into the plan.

And no, your wrong again - I don't get to build anymore structures on my property for at least 20 years. But then you couldn't pay me enough money to develop my property. I'm not for sale at any price.

Now I'm through with you. To quote Motley Crue: Don't go away mad - just go away.

That's good Scott. What you don't understand you call spewing. On the other I have indeed seen "the map lately" and am far more aware of what "town center, high density, farm use, and greenbelts built into the plan" means than you are. Go away is a good choice. You are illequipped to discuss these issues. And down the road, "5-10 years" as you said when you do sell, if you are one of the lucky ones you too will get a windfall. If you had been designated in a green belt you wouldn't be spewing your nonsense about how well everything is working out from the 100 plus meetings. So come clean before you go away. How was your land labeled on the map? Be honest now, you can do it. What does the map show for your neighbors too.

Regarding what you can do to help curb global warming. What I would like to know is why there is never a mention that I can find anywhere about driving 55mph? Is it such a taboo idea that no one wants to stick out there neck or is it that the idea of returning to a national 55mph limit besides being unpopular would not make any difference?

I sent an email yesterday asking several environmental organizations that I support why they do not mention a 55mph limit and I also sent a copy to www.drive55.org. I was told by the drive55.org representative that he has a list of 80 environmental organizations he contacted and essentially was ignored by all of them.

Here is a copy of the email I sent: To the leaders and supporters of NRDC, RAN, Alliance for Climate Protection, Environmental Defense, and WWF,

Regarding Cafe Standards, Global Warming, Carbon Emissions - how serious are we really? I have found no support in any of the environmental protection organizations for a reduction in speed limits to 55mph. From my experiences I have to think that perhaps the same resistance I receive on a personal level is somewhat indicative of why I do not see this supported by NRDC, RAN, Alliance for Climate Protection, Environmental Defense, or WWF(all of which I support as a member). People seem to tell me that they would rather trade a healthy environment off for one hour of their time on a 400 mile trip or maybe for 5 minutes on some short trip to work or town, often citing that their time is worth a lot to them. My time is too, but it isn't worth more than a healthy environment or the blood that really pays for oil. We import all but 11% of what we use and the demand from other nations is increasing while the availability is waning. The price has to go up, and that cost will be paid in part by more blood too. Is it the fear of losing membership by supporting this cause, to slow down to 55mph, why none of these major environmental groups recognize any advantage in a 55mph limit. If not, then what?

If there wasn’t this notion that speed limits over 55mph were necessary, auto makers could more easily meet the EPA mileage standards by not having to design and provide autos that are capable of meeting both high speeds and fuel efficiency. The horsepower required to make autos capable of accelerating like rockets and reaching speeds that are not even legal anywhere in the country is old school. There is nothing to be gained any longer by whipping this old horse to death. We have abused this privilege and this means of transportation by turning it into more than what it needs to be. While it is not the most sensible, it has given us an individual freedom like no other in the history of man. Because of that our nation is now locked into an economic dependency on the personal auto by allowing us to stretch beyond the reasonable reaches of public transportation. Are our lives truly so much better at 70mph verses 65mph or even 55mph, that we have to continue to sacrifice the environment.

Today it is definitely evident in many parts of the world that oil is at the heart of so many horrific atrocities. People in other nations lose their lively hoods or even their lives because of it while factions struggle for control and ecosystems are trashed as in the Niger Delta where people who once fished for food now live in squalor unable to feed themselves. There are several nations, people and ecosystems that are suffering. We are just as responsible for this as we stress the system with irresponsible behaviors. And as each ecosystem unravels, many see their right to drive 70mph as most important, so much more because their time is important to them.

Maybe we will see new technological advances, such as turning corn, formally known as food, into fuel, fooling ourselves into thinking that this is a solution. Remember this though, how many older cars will remain on the road for how much longer because people can not afford the cost of a Prius or any other new and efficient vehicle? How many more ecological disasters will it take to open our eyes to the further disruption of ecosystems already being stressed by this unquenchable thirst for oil? Even if there are some solutions, they are not going to come soon enough because we needed them yesterday. What we can do right now is change our ways for the better, conserve, slow down, know the value of what we have and face the possibility of suffering if we continue to be ignorant of the consequences of our wasteful behavior. It is time for a serious paradigm shift. One that says keep your personal transportation, but make it a more responsible transportation. Not just by mandating auto makers to make more efficient vehicles but by being more responsible individually.

When you stick that nozzle in your tank next time to fill up, realize that another species is becoming extinct, another ecosystem is failing, another people somewhere on this planet are losing more than just 1 hour of their time, another young soldier is maimed or killed while defending some cause that keeps the oil flowing. As you stand their filling your tank, ask yourself if you are truly committed to a better world, or if your time is more important than that.

I challenge you all to get serious, Larry Sanazaro