I think it is great that Democrats "own" this issue.

When swing voters start paying for the added costs of fighting this man made menace, they'll know who to blame for the higher cost of living and give credit for the reduction in green house gas.

Remember what a great Democrat once said, "It's the economy, stupid".

Oh sure, summer's coming and outside ambient air temperatures are warming up once again. It's the perfect time to harp about mankind's contribution to the deaths of polar bears and the recession of ice fields. At least the members of the Church of Global Warming won't look like fools as they did this past winter and spring as they were snowed in and had events cancelled due to severely frigid weather.

So what if we're in a warming cycle? I understand other planets in our solar system are slightly warming as well. Can we blame that on our carbon emissions?

Actually, I'm all for practical measures that contribute to cleaner air, but I think it should be voluntary. There are enough restrictions on internal combustion engines. Cars are very fuel efficient and produce far fewer harmful emissions than they did 30 years ago.

We must be careful about legislating "fixes" for problems that may not exist.

One of my (many) Repub partners actually said this to me last Friday: "If gas prices go up another dollar a gallon, poor people will have to quit driving, which should help clear up the air quite a bit."

I would like to say my doltish friend drives a Hummer, but alas he drives some sort of weird giant Mercedes SUV thing that looks like an African safari vehicle, so my story does not have a perfect ending.

Jeff, you hit the nail on the head: astonishing.

Though the rest of the civilized world has internalized the fact that our climate is undergoing a dramatic change, only in the past 6-12 months has that awareness hit the U.S. and Oregon in a big way. And the rapidity of the change in awareness is indeed astonishng.

As far as Oregon politics go, I don't think the size of Kulongoski's victory was entirely unrelated to the climate change denials of his opponent. And Legislature may now realize that Oregon has moved politically on this issue, and it is time to pass these three bills and not lag behind the rest of the West Coast in beginning to deal with the problem at hand.

There is no question or debate in my mind. Global warming is a hot hard fact. Every aspect of it linked to the environment and sustainablity. Solving the problem IS all about the economy...specifically the energy/oil/coal/chemical/save-a-buck-to-make-more economy. It seems to me that there must be some sort of energy efficient light bulb that should go on somewhere in the hallowed halls where the deciders loiter. One day I pray they will realize that incentives and tax breaks (and bans on the bad stuff) for widely based earth-saving innovations will reap a larger long term payoff than allowing big oil and big business to continue on with their long time rape of the land and population in the name of the bottom dollar and happy share-holders. After all I assume even the deciders and the 1% have progeny who will suffer with the rest of us when the earth turns terminally septic. Global warming is a voter's hot button, and a politician's conflict of self-interest.

But for now, it is not the general population that will fight against and try to compromise global warming legislation...or any sort of ecology-minded legislation, bans and new technology...it is the big biz campaign contributors with long bucks for lobbies. These are the poisons that can contaminate any sort of timely legislation aimed at going green and saving the earth. I suspect that too many compromises will be made, even though it is clear we are at a global warming tipping point, and running out of time. AND we have our own government agencies at counter-purposes with each other when it comes to environmental issues!

Example: I live in east county across the street from a tree farm. We're inside an urban growth boundary, and the plan is that all soils on all UGB properties will have to be tested for contaminates, and deemed "clean" before any development takes place on the sites. There is even Brownfields Federal grant money to perform the testing and remediations. In the meantime the owner of the tree farm tells me that he, like all other tree farmers in Oregon, is required by the state to liberally spray pesticides for pine beetles every year. His "seasonal help" who do the labor wear no protection while spraying, and as for us... when they spray, we can taste the chemical before we can smell it or see it, and are treated like idiots getting in the way of progress when we complain and ask that they stop poisoning us, our pets, and our organic gardening practices. Bet you didn't know you were bringing pesticides into your yuletide season when you buy that freshly slaughtered tree.

Here's another one....federal (& state) law is hell on wheels about repairing, replacing or decommissioning leaking underground home heating oil tanks, and decontaminating the surrounding soils. Yet every year thousands of miles of rural roads are oiled (sprayed with oil to keep the dust down) by state highway departments and local municipalities...and the oil runs off into pasture and farm lands, where our food grazes and grows. Highway shoulders and ditches are sprayed with herbicides that funk up the air and run off onto the land and into the aquifer. Your tax dollars at work.

I read that consumers are unwilling to pay more than 10-25% more for products that are green. And for the low to mid-income consumers, the choice will always be budget based. Let's see...do I pay my mortgage, car insurance and utility bills, or should I buy only green products and pay more to hope and pray my organic food is free of Chinese gluten, and Peruvian pesticides? (No guarantee their either). None of us, paying the amount of taxes we do in exchange for representation, should have to make those types of choices.

We've got a lot of collective soul searching to do when it comes to global warmng & environmental legislation. With every ban on bad stuff, and legislated policy changes toward earth friendly practices, some businesses big & small will suffer and/or go under, corporate and income tax revenues will be lost, campaign contributions will dry up, and the cost of living will rise. That's the economic reality....and life is a series of little trade-offs, eh?

What will save us is recognizing that the age of consumer-driven capitalism is over. This is not an “inconvenient” truth we need to confront. It’s a terrifying truth. Dave Lindorff

Don't miss www.icecap.us

Thanks JK

Once we get Earth's global warming under control, will we tackle the global warming of all these other planets? They must have Hummers and Diesel Trucks on them, too.

I frankly do not understand how anyone studying this issue can fall for this garbage. I've read both sides of this and the only thing for certain is that yes humans do contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. To make the enormous leap that it is also certain or near certain that humans contribute enough to be the cuase of our current warming is pure foolishness. The tremndous and growing body of contradicting science and measurements signals a big problem for those who have come to comepletely believe the entire global warming scare. You need to wake up and read the contradictions and note the absolute irrefutable warming measurements and cycles that do NOT indicate human impacts.

Wow, and here I thought I had to worry about global warming and CO2 emissions. Guess I was wrong!

Thanks Jim!

Now, does this mean I have to worry about my other pollution? Besides finally splurging on that BMW X5 I had my eyes on (only 12 mpg!), can I just dump my batteries and bottles of toxic chemicals I have in my garage down the drain, or should I just take 'em to the river?

Yes Jeff, there is google. Try searching "corrupt peer review" or "peer review corrupted" and bone up a little there fella.

While you're at it what sort of science, study or "peer review" can you find or did you require for the Portland claims of reduced emissions? Oh, NONE? I see. You only trust "peer review" on some things. Treat is holy work, and dismiss any need for it for when you like the BS? For you or anyone to dismiss, out of hand, all of the growing contradictory information, gathered by many scientists because of loosely made associations is intellectual dishonesty big time.

You Jeff, "declare" that none of the information is worth anyone's time? I can only imagine what the press would be like under your control. No doubt you would see fit to share with readers only that which you decide is worth their time.

Has anyone determined the impact of trolls on global warming? ;) Just wondering.

MCT, just a few points. The state doesn't require tree farmers to spray. Oiling parts of rural gravel roads is an old term. Oil hasn't been used for a long time. It's a form of biodegradable glue.

Jeff, Yes, people are getting more aware, but I don't think most people are ready to come to grips with what needs to be done to stop global warming. People talk about controling emmisions, but that just shifts around who's putting the carbon in the air. The ONLY way to stop the build up of carbon in the air is to leave it in the ground. Eventually every bit of the coal, gas and oil that is taken from the ground will find its way into the atmosphere. We need to mine the atmoswphere for our carbon.

It sure would be neat if the intellectual process replicated the scientific process, but that would involve some kind of peer review; unfortunately we live in a world where opinion trumps evidence.

It is interesting how the faithful quote how the Bible says how nature is intended to be subordinate to man and that man is master of nature. Then they turn around and deny man’s impact on the environment. That can’t admit that man can foul his own mess. St. Augustine would have no problems with this issue; he would have said it is further evidence of man’s corruption. Unfortunately, no One is going to step in to save us.

If you strongly believe in the market, you can ignore the market’s impact on the environment.

And then there is logic. If we can’t prove the connection, the connection does not exist. By that line of reasoning the sun did in fact orbit the earth, up until about 600 years ago.

It all reads like people in a state of denial who lack the existential courage to face the consequences of their actions and the actions of the three or four preceding generations.

This is special. Distribute a pack of lies then poll people to see if they worked. Is there any wonder Global Warming polls show rising concern?

torrijoe reminds us of how that works locally. Hey, how about a poll to see if the public believes Portland's and Joe's emissions lie?

Joe, Again you deceive through exclusion and deliberate misrepresentation. As you know very well, it was NOT merely "bad math", and that the "emissions were actually flat--itself a monumental achievement" As you know, "Peer review" revealed there was NO valid measurement of emissions, period. So any claims of reductions or a "flat, momumental achievement" is far more bogus than any of the disparaged science from global warming deniers. As you know Portland's emissions success was flat out made up.

This has been pointed out to you over and over again and yet you continue to distribute the false emissions.

Perhaps you need to be peer reviewed?

Given the explosion of people since 1990 Portland emissions have risen as much as any similar metropolitan area city. There is a sound body of science and reasoning that Portland's regional policies have actually made emission worse by clogging traffic and consolidating growth in an unnecessary overcrowded pattern. What does it take to get some consistency? Where is the real science and study to validate or critique our policies which you so eagerly accept without substantiation? Apparently all that matters with you folks is having a poll where enough people believe what you told them. Run around telling people lies then poll people to see if they bought it. That's hardly appropriate.

[Comment deleted - more debate about the science.]

Yep, typical of the nanny-staters in this day and age:

"Please, big government, do something about global warming. Pundits like Al Gore tell us we're all to blame for global warming...even thought he refuses to take his own Gore pledge. We the proletariate need to be denied the right to choose what we drive and how we live. Thank God the Hollywood elitist like Cheryl Crow and Barbara Streisand can consume as much as they want while the rest of us suffer under government mandates and restrictions."

[Comment deleted - more debate about the science.]

Jeff, please answer this: How much do you suppose global warming cures will harm low income people, or do you think global warming can be stopped without harming people?

Thanks JK

One of our most popular ideas at Since Sliced Bread would reduce global warming by reducing commuting by 1/5.

So now you're worried about the worrying?

Bob Tiernan

How much do you suppose global warming cures will harm low income people, or do you think global warming can be stopped without harming people?--Karlock

This is an interesting point that bears discussion, although the wording is such that it's a leading question fishing for a particular answer.

Always worth bearing in mind, everyone, that science and public policy are different. The science can inform the public policy. If you don't like the proposed policy, don't get into invidious attacks on the science but instead propose a different policy.

lin qiao:

Always worth bearing in mind, everyone, that science and public policy are different. The science can inform the public policy. If you don't like the proposed policy, don't get into invidious attacks on the science but instead propose a different policy.

Bob T:

I'd like to see an explanation regarding why the establishment is treating scientists who are not on the sky-is-falling bandwagon the same way that the chuch was treating people like Galileo centuries ago.

Bob Tiernan