Green With Envy
Seven things Portland should do if we’re serious about being green.
July 23rd, 2008
BEST OF PORTLAND: By the People, For the People0 comments
July 16th, 2008
Lean, Mean Meat-Free Machine | Portlander Robert Cheeke is the face of vegan bodybuilding.133 comments
July 9th, 2008
The Sopranokovs | The Russian mob comes to town with a new scam—medical identity theft.19 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Manhunter | Almost every state lets bounty hunters chase down its most wanted. Why doesn’t Oregon?103 comments
June 25th, 2008
Get Wet: WW’s Summer Guide 2008 | The rain is finally over. Now let’s get wet!1 comment
June 18th, 2008
New Kids In The Flock | Gresham’s twin teenage sensations go about their Father’s business. And it’s making them superstars.49 comments
June 11th, 2008
The Price is WHAT? | Second-guessing City Hall—it’s more fun than Monopoly! 17 comments
June 4th, 2008
Welcome to Googleville | America’s newest information superhighway begins On Oregon’s Silicon Prairie.18 comments
May 28th, 2008
Fleeced | While students across Oregon celebrate graduation, many are facing a gnawing problem—they’re getting sheared by huge debt.57 comments
May 21st, 2008
A Bridge Over The River Why? | Local pols say global warming is a dire threat. But they want to spend $4.2 billion on a project that makes driving easier.74 comments
 PLASTICS, OREGON: The plastic shopping bag recycling rate in the U.S. may be as low as 2 percent, Plastics News estimates. IMAGE: courtesy reusablebags.com |
[April 16th, 2008]
Especially in Portland, “America’s top green city,” according to February’s Popular Science. The biggest city in the state that gave birth to the bottle bill. The first U.S. city to adopt Kyoto Protocol targets.
Portlanders drive an average of three fewer miles a day than the average American Joe. We have more certified green buildings per capita than any other U.S. city.
Canola-based biodiesel flows from some of our gas pumps. Our recycling rate is double the national average. Even our antiwar rallies run on solar power.
Time to kick back with an organic IPA and watch the clouds go by, right?
Hardly.
The Environmental Protection Agency lists 15 hazardous Superfund sites in Portland. Last October, Business Week reported that Portland had one contaminated site for every 34 people, making us the country’s third “most toxic” city, ahead of Los Angeles.
And let’s not forget those “sewer overflows,” which is a nice way of saying the Willamette River fills with shit when it rains.
We’re not even the biggest dreamers.
Last year it was not Portland Mayor Tom Potter, but Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels who convened a headline-grabbing climate change conference—and this month proposed to ban disposable shopping bags and foam food containers in his city. It was not Portland, but Chicago that hosted the annual Greenbuild conference. Potter and the Portland delegation rented a room.
It’s not Gov. Ted Kulongoski, but Gen. Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, who is investing $15 billion to build a “carbon-neutral” city.
You know Portland is off its game when the world’s next sustainability mecca is in a friggin’ petro state.
Wake up, Portland. We’re slipping. Sometime between Gov. Tom McCall’s speeches and Al Gore’s Nobel Prize, Portland ceded the green crown.
Why? Two things happened. First, other cities caught on to our brand of sustainability. “At one point we were the greenest corner of the country and perhaps one of the trendsetters of the world. And now, I don’t want to say we’re falling behind, but we’re no longer uniquely the ones to watch,” says Clark Williams-Derry, research director at Seattle enviro think tank the Sightline Institute, formerly Northwest Environment Watch.
“The problem is, because life is good in the city of Portland, people don’t have a sense of urgency,” says Dick Roy, who runs the nonprofit Center for Earth Leadership. “We’re adrift in an extraordinarily critical period of time.”
Roy, who gave up a high-paying lawyer gig to become an eco-missionary, remembers the first celebrated Earth Day in 1970. Then, protesters buried cars in the dirt—instead of drinking chai and visiting “environmental education” booths rented for $100 in Overlook Park, the site of this year’s celebration.
Even greenies who didn’t live through the ’70s think local enviros have lost their edge.
“We’re riding on fumes, and we’re riding on our reputation,” says Jules Kopel-Bailey, 28, an economist who’s running for state representative from Portland’s Sunnyside neighborhood. “The time for half-measures is over.”
We can do better. And we can start by stealing these seven green ideas. Call it “sharing,” if that makes you feel better. Either way, we shouldn’t be so arrogant as to ignore a good idea just because we didn’t think of it first. What would you rather have 10 or 20 years from now: a city that’s still livable, or bragging rights?
These ideas were stolen with a method. All of them make it easier to conserve energy. Some of them put a price tag on waste—and raise money for more good ideas.
1. IF UGANDA CAN DO IT, WHY CAN’T WE?
Earlier this month, Seattle city leaders announced plans for a 20-cent tax on disposable plastic—and paper—grocery bags. It’s probably the best-written anti-bag ordinance yet.
At least 16 other U.S. cities—including Reno, Nev., which has a Republican mayor—plus states like Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey are working on banning or taxing plastic bags, or setting up special recycling programs.
“Everybody’s doing it,” says Dan Kammen, a prof at U.C. Berkeley, another city that’s moving ahead with a plastic-bag ban.
 HOT OR NOT?: Berkeley is helping residents pay for solar panels. Hot! |
China’s ban takes effect soon. Bangladesh already banned the bag. So did Uganda, where leaders are pushing a return to bags made of renewable banana leaves. In Zanzibar, possessing contraband plastic bags can get you a six-month jail sentence, according to the BBC.
In Portland? City Commissioner Sam Adams proposed a ban this time last year, telling WW, “We should have done this a long time ago” (“Paper or Plastic?” WW, April 11, 2007).
In the past 12 months, higher-end stores like IKEA, Whole Foods and Zupan’s have either stopped offering plastic or started offering discounts for reusable bags.
Adams? He got busy with other things, like running for mayor.
Why does this matter? Most of the oil in a 42-gallon barrel goes toward making fuel—making plastic bags, a petroleum product, consumes about five tablespoons.
That doesn’t sound like much. But with the current U.S. demand for oil, one tablespoon out of each of those barrels would, over the course of a year, fill up the largest reservoir on Mount Tabor.
Vincent Cobb, who founded ReusableBags.com, has taken hundreds of pictures of plastic bags stuck in trees. “It’s symbolic of wasteful consumerism, the plastic bag,” he says. “And it’s something we can change so easily.”
Plastic bags may take hundreds of years to decompose in a landfill—no one’s sure quite how long, because the bags themselves are a recent invention. Those that become litter pose a bigger problem—sunlight breaks them down into ever-tinier chunks, which wind up polluting the oceans, carried by the currents to a massive floating plastic tumor called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
2. DEAR CANADA: INVADE US ANYTIME
A strong dollar. Universal health care. Habeas corpus. Canada seems to have it all. And now this: In February, our near-neighbors in the province of British Columbia adopted an environmental policy that could be as effective as taking half a million cars off the road. It’s a simple two-point plan:
First, cut income taxes.
Then, raise the taxes on pollution.
B.C.’s new “carbon tax,” which should start in June, will charge $10 Canadian per metric ton of greenhouse-gas emissions, ratcheted up to $30 a ton over three years.
How, you ask, will they tax emissions? The Mounties can’t track everything that comes out of your car’s tailpipe, your gas stove and your Zippo. But the government can tax the fossil fuels that cause global warming before they’re burned.
Here’s how it works:
The manufacturers and importers of fossil fuels (think Big Oil) will collect a security deposit from their customers, the fuel wholesalers and retailers (think Little Oil, like the corner gas station).
Every month, Big Oil turns that security deposit over to the B.C. government. Big Oil gets its money back when Little Oil sells the fuel to the people who will actually burn it: consumers (that’s you, in your car).
The dirtier the fuel, the higher the carbon tax. For instance, it will add 9 cents to the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Diesel, being slightly dirtier, will be taxed another penny and a half. Propane, being cleaner, will be taxed a few cents less than gasoline.
Biofuels, like corn-based ethanol or plain old wood, are exempt from the tax.
Besides making driving even more expensive, the carbon tax will mean higher bills for heating and hot water. (Which explains why many carbon-tax opponents live in B.C.’s northern hinterlands, where average wintertime lows are about minus-10 degrees F.)
Because the B.C. plan cuts other taxes to make up for the pollution penalty, it comes out a wash.
The genius of the carbon tax is that it makes not conserving energy about as smart as cashing out your 401(k) to go on spring break with PSU basketball players down in Cabo.
The carbon tax was adopted as part of the provincial budget by Finance Minister Carole Taylor, a member of the Liberal Party, which is the closest thing B.C. has to a Republican Party.
Sigh.
3. BIG BROTHER’S GREEN SIDE
London has the best example of congestion pricing. In 2003, planners there drew a line around the city center. If you drive past the line into the city, you pay a $16 toll, which covers all the trips you make in a day. There’s no charge at night or on weekends.
The fee can be paid (or prepaid) online, by phone, mail or credit card in parking garages. It can’t easily be dodged, because the city’s Big Brotherly surveillance cameras automatically scan passing license plates. (Granted, that’s creepy.)
Story continues belowadvertisement
 FASTER THAN A SPEEDING STREETCAR: Give buses some love. |
The scheme generates over $243 million a year, which, by law, must be spent on buses, street and bridge maintenance, road safety, and programs for cyclists and pedestrians.
The result? Less traffic. In four years, car traffic within the zone declined 37 percent. Bicycle traffic increased 43 percent.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone had to run for re-election in 2004, after congestion pricing took effect. His opponent promised that his first official act would be to “ring the people who are in charge of congestion charging and tell them to stop.” Livingstone won.
Done right, congestion pricing works. Singapore has used a form of it since the 1970s. Stockholm tweaked London’s model in 2006. And New York City leaders recently moved on an $8 congestion charge, though the plan sank last week in New York’s state legislature.
Granted, Portland’s traffic problems aren’t the same as London’s or New York’s. And both of those cities have subway systems. Driving is optional.
But congestion pricing could work here, too.
Adams, who heads the city’s Office of Transportation, says he’s “absolutely” open to congestion pricing. But he’s not pushing it. “In our polling, 4 percent of Portlanders supported it,” Adams says.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski said last week he’s open to broaching the idea in the 2009 Legislature.
And to their credit, Oregon and Washington state planners have talked about a form of congestion pricing on the new I-5 bridge project, the Columbia River Crossing. It’s not as sophisticated as what London’s doing, but it’s a start.
4. ACCOUNTANTS MEET SUN WORSHIPPERS
In June, Berkeley is rolling out a clever energy-saving scheme that could easily work here.
“Berkeley First” leverages the city’s credit to front people the cash for upgrades, like a more efficient furnace or rooftop solar panels. Though city staff is still hashing out the mechanics, the program already has a waiting list of 400 people.
Here’s the gist: A homeowner who wants, say, a $20,000 solar energy system applies to the program through the city or a local bank. The city borrows money to pay for this, but without raising taxes. That’s because the homeowner is obliged to pay back the city over 20 years, through an increased assessment on his property tax bill.
Since the city is backing the loan, not the homeowner, banks can offer better terms. (“Berkeley has a very low default rate on our property taxes,” says Julie Sinai, chief of staff to Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates.)
And since the loan payments are tacked on to the homeowner’s property taxes, he can deduct the extra cost from his state and federal taxes. Those deductions, combined with existing tax incentives and lower energy bills, mean homeowners see a payback from their investment much sooner.
“I think it’s one of the cleverer things we’ve done in a while,” says Kammen at U.C. Berkeley’s Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, which helped devise the program.
5. $147 MILLION FOR THIS?
Curitiba is a landlocked Brazilian city with slightly more people than Portland, much less money and an infinitely better bus system.
The buses in Curitiba work like trains, with dedicated lanes and express service; fares are paid before boarding. During peak times, a rapid-transit bus shows up every 90 seconds.
In Curitiba’s metro area, there’s a bus for every 1,100 people.
In the Portland metro area, there’s one TriMet bus for every 3,500 people. Only 16 of the agency’s 92 bus routes offer “frequent service,” with waits of 15 minutes (theoretically) between buses.
Anyone who relies on TriMet’s buses knows their weaknesses. Work weekends? Add two hours to your trip. Need to transfer? Start walking. Closed the bar? Call a cab.
TriMet’s planners know people will take the bus if they don’t have to wait. “Even people that have cars in Curitiba use public transportation because it’s convenient, it’s affordable and it serves the city well,” says Clara Irazábal, a professor at the University of Southern California and author of an urban planning book that studied Curitiba and Portland.
Before you assume we’re asking for yet more tax dollars, wait. We’re suggesting something else: fewer dollars—for streetcars.
Federal policy forces trains and buses to compete for the same money. And in Portland, light rail and streetcar projects have hogged funds that could’ve gone to buses and drawn more people out of their cars.
 CASH MONEY: A nickel deposit leads to a lot of trash. Raise the deposit. |
Over the next five years, TriMet wants to add five new frequent-service bus routes. More likely it will be two, depending on funds. Or quite possibly none. According to the agency’s five-year plan, “actual implementation depends on funding availability.”
Now, consider: Portland’s next streetcar line will serve a 6.7-mile loop on the inner east side. It won’t open until 2011, by which time, Metro’s projections show, Portlanders will be losing another hour of their lives each day on our increasingly congested roads.
The new streetcar will cost at least $147 million in federal, state and local money.
That could buy at least 25 miles of “bus rapid transit” like Curitiba’s, or the fareless, four-mile Eugene-to-Springfield bus line that opened last year.
Which is why Portland’s rail fans need to make peace with the bus.
“It’s a weird sort of religious war,” says Williams-Derry of the Sightline Institute. “People who care one way or the other are people who have a direct financial stake. They fight with each other, and the car manufacturers sit back and chuckle.”
6. PRICE GOUGING YOU CAN LOVE
In March, Washington, D.C., added several “market rate” parking zones, including areas around the Columbia Heights shopping district and the Nationals’ ballpark. Parking prices are adjusted continuously, based on date, hour and location so that about 15 percent of parking spaces are always vacant.
That means jacking up curbside parking rates to $18 an hour when there’s a ballgame. “Most people who park there during ballpark events are from out of the area,” says Donald Shoup, a parking expert at UCLA. “The Pearl District, with all those tourists there—it would be perfect.”
The D.C. ordinance sets aside the extra money for “non-automobile” improvements within the parking zone, including bus-only lanes and prettied-up bus stops, new sidewalks, better crosswalks and street lighting, and separated or painted bike lanes.
Redwood City, Calif., did something similar in 2006. The most popular parking spots, on downtown’s main street, cost 75 cents an hour. A block away, 50 cents. Two blocks away, a quarter. Commissioner Adams floated—and quickly dropped—a Shoup-style parking zone in Portland’s Hawthorne District more than a year ago (“Street of Schemes,” WW, Oct. 4, 2006). “It makes a lot of sense, but I’m not going to force it on the business districts,” he says.
“How could any city claim that they’re green when they have all these people driving around and around and around looking for curbside parking?” says Shoup. “Is that your climate-change action plan?”
7. NOBODY SAYS, “BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE A NICKEL?”
Michigan is the only state that charges a 10-cent bottle deposit. Oregon’s deposit is 5 cents, the same as it was when this state passed the country’s first bottle bill, in 1971.
In one state, 98 percent of deposits get redeemed, and the bottles get recycled. In the other state, only 84 percent do.
Can you guess which is which?
“We should double the deposit,” says Jerry Powell, editor of Resource Recycling magazine and member of a state committee that will suggest tweaks to Oregon’s bottle bill this November.
Plastic water bottles will be redeemable in Oregon starting next year, for the first time. Powell wisely suggests expanding the bill to include juices, sports drinks like Gatorade, iced teas, wine and booze—pretty much every “non-milk beverage,” as he puts it.
Why not milk?
“Politics,” says Powell. “People from Tillamook with cows” would complain.
Tough noogies. The Legislature should throw milk containers in the mix, too. Alberta, Canada, is doing it, and presumably an Oregonian can open a powdered-milk box as well as a Canadian can. Or buy the black-market, unpasteurized stuff.
And don’t just double the deposit—fix it for inflation. A nickel in 1971 is worth 26 cents today. We’ll settle for a quarter.
Less than half of Portland’s population is old enough to remember when Oregon passed the bottle bill, or a year before that, when a Stanford-educated hippie named Denis Hayes, who was born just up the Columbia River in Camas, Wash., organized the nation’s first Earth Day.
But back then, we were the cool kids. Everybody copied our style. Four decades later, maybe Portland has grown up enough to look beyond itself.
The B.C. carbon tax plan includes a quarterly kicker to low-income families of $100 per adult and $30 per child. It cuts personal income taxes by 5 percent, and corporate incomes taxes by 1 percent.
Plastics News estimates the plastic shopping bag recycling rate in the U.S. may be as low as 2 percent.
Buses burn a lot of gas. But MAX and the streetcar also have an exhaust pipe—it’s just 160 miles away, at Portland General Electric’s coal plant in Boardman. Coal provides 42 percent of Oregon’s electricity—about as much as comes from hydropower.
Sightline’s analysis shows that a train with 50 riders per car is roughly as efficient as a bus that’s three-quarters full.
If it takes three minutes to find a parking space, and 10 cars use that space in a day, then over a year, all those cars cruising for a free parking spot rack up enough miles to circle the earth 36 times, figures Shoup.
Last year, the California Energy Commission decided that by 2030, all new buildings should produce as much energy as they consume. Opponents say that amounts to a solar-panel mandate that would add $50,000 to the cost of a 2,500-square-foot home.
Portland’s Office of Sustainable Development helps people fill out the pile of paperwork for state and federal tax credits that can cut the cost of an $18,000 solar system down to $5,500. Visit sustainableportland.org.
Another big win: equalize educational offerings in public schools across town, and put an end to the daily commute that sees thousands of students leaving their neighborhoods in the backs of mini vans, just so they can get a basic, comprehensive public education.
We have the infrastructure to provide quality, comprehensive education in every neighborhood. There should be no need to commute across town for this.
This just goes to show what I've been thinking since I moved here 3 years ago: this town (and state) are not nearly as progressive and environmentally conscious as they like to think they are. Congestion pricing? Here, no way. Good public transportation? Perhaps within the Portland area, but not between cities, like from Portland to Salem. Banning smoking in bars and restaurants? The legislature finally got around to doing it last term and we're still waiting - til Jan. 09! - for the ban to take effect, years after California, New York, Washington, etc. Parking meters to discourage driving and raise money for street and sidewalk improvements? The merchants and residents in Hawthorne and Northwest knee-jerkedly oppose them and the city council meekly backs down. Banning plastic bags? Again, Portland tepidly waits while other bolder cities like San Francisco and Seattle go first.
Those five tablespoons of petroleum aren't part of making fuel. It is a by product of making fuel. So for all the green goodness you espouse, you're not saving any oil that would go towards fuel. If not used in making plastics it would be thrown out.
Surely, there's a mistake in the "how it works" part of Item 2. Big Oil should not get ALL the money back. How would that replenish the revenue lost from lower income taxes? So long a fuel is more expensive via transferred taxation, who cares what kind of "Peter pays Paul" scheme is established?
Why keep adding deposits? Curbside recycling has made it obsolete. All of the deposit I pay simply stays in the pocket of the grocery store I purchased the beverages from. Why take the time to go back to the store, when I can put it out on the curb.
Then again, if I were a trash collector, I'd be filtering out all the aluminum cans on my route. I'd probably double my income....
Hello, I think you'll be going back to the store *anyway*. Sending the packaging back upstream isn't that inconvenient, really!
If you want to put a congestion tax in in Portland you can say goodbye to pretty much all retail in downtown. You would not see a single suburbanite down there spending money ever. Beaverton, Tigard, Tualitan, West Linn, Lake Oswego, Hillsboro....None of thos people would go downtown to eat at the restaraunts or shop at any stores.
Forget about better bus routes. The public transport money here goes to things like the Tram and the Streetcar, so people who live downtown can get to other places downtown. These dont make us more green; they just make tourists think we have cool stuff.
Yay Sam, won't his Pearl investors buck when their retail property values drop.
You got that right. Only people that will dine/shop downtown will be people that live/work there. You can forget all the 'ladies who lunch' with deep pockets from the outlying areas.
This city needs to add more, better, cleaner, safer buses and get off the sexy, trendy European trans ideas like trains and streetcars. They are not flexible enough and cost too much upfront. And folks, this ain't Amsterdam. It is sea level there. Biking is easy. Too many hills here to overcome for people to ever get with the bike utopia some people envision. It just isn't going to happen. A businesswoman, who must wear heels, suit, hosiery, have coiffed hair and make-up is NOT going to ride a bike to work downtown. Get real. Plus, she probably has 2 kids to drop off in a.m., errands to run or clients to see during day, drycleaning to pick up after work along with groceries...she needs a fucking car!! (No, this is not me, just co-workers)She is never, ever going to be able to take public transport or ride a bike.
"Safer" buses? I ride the bust every day and have never felt threatened by anyone. What buses are you riding?
Cleaner, though—that would be nice.
Taxpayer, I'd encourage you to think about where suburbanites are going to want to shop when gasoline hits 5 dollars a gallon.
Equipped with decent transit alternatives, they just might turn their backs on the suburbs when its cheaper to take a train to go shop in a more exciting, accessible and livable environment.
Aaron, supply and demand, if gas is $5 a gallon you're going to see demand shift to other methods AUTOMATICALLY. If they don't live on the narrow, limited transit corridor dictated by our city council, something else will pop up. (noticed how the new suburban-matron SUV is the Prius?)
Wrong. Suburbanites will shop at Bridgeport, Wash Sq. LO, etc. They will forgo downtown rather than take mass transit. They will shop online before they get on a crusty bus with smelly freaks. Sorry, that's just the way it is. They won't walk a mile to stand in rain for 1/2 hour waiting for a bus with fogged windows and some weirdo muttering to himself, reeking of urine and wet wool.
Thanks for calling out the preposterousness of the streetcar. I ride the bus regularly and stare at the TRIMET posters of Portland in the 1800s when there were streetcars. Finally it hit me...in those pictures those streets were crowded with people, not cars. The Streetcar paradigm just doesn't work anymore when the streets are crowded with cars instead of people.
TRIMET should reduce fares to $1 thus making it so inexpensive that people really see that it is their best cost option to ride and take more vehicles off the road. And all that money for streetcars (construction and annual maintenance) should be spent on more buses and routes. If the system ain't going to fund itself we might as well subsidize a system that truly works and provides enhanced services for more people. Buses are the way to go. Look at creating circulator routes with small buses - they've done that in DC and are quite popular.
As a native Michigander, I see first hand the difference between a $.05 and a $.10 deposit. Back there, we made a concerted effort to take back our bottles. But here, in Oregon, it either ends up in our recycling or we end up donating it. Its odd, because A LOT of people in Michigan do NOT recycle, but they make sure to take back their bottles...You take back enough, and you can buy more beer!
The MAX is fantastic. It's fast, it's comfortable, it's safe, it's 'green'. I've heard plenty of people say they'll take the MAX but they would never take a bus. Yeah, they're snobs, but that doesn't mean we can (or should) ignore them. Plus, a wheel-and-spoke model works well - MAX lines spreading out from downtown in all directions, with buses to fill in the gaps and get you from the MAX station home.
However, the Streetcar is a joke. Most of the time you can walk faster. It's there for development (and that is how it is normally justified), it's not a part of the transport system.
It shouldn't be bus vs rail. It should be bus & MAX together vs Streetcar.
It sounds as though this is a Big Oil propaganda piece! They hate Portland's electric mass transport systems.
Street cars are superior to buses in every way. Rail is 10 time more energy effient than buses because steel on steel uses much less energy than rubber on asphalt and the buses have more wind resistance than a series of street cars linked.
Street cars use electricity which can be from renewable energy like the dozens of wind power farms going up in the gorge. Diesel is skyrocketing in price and is dirty.
Buses do tremendous damage to asphalt requiring lots of street maintenence. With every doubling of weight you get 10 times the road damage. Steel wheels on rails last much longer and is much cheaper to maintain.
Street cars are more comfortable than buses and more accomadating to the old and wheelchair bound.
Street cars make it much easier for developers to plan ahead. With street cars they know that the route will never change which givers them more incentive to invest in areas it goes.Ask Mr. Powell of Powell Books sometimes. He was deadset against the streetcar but it has increased his business so much he is now one of its greatest advocate boosters.
Bus routes change and would be riders dont know where the routes go.
Erik, I don't know how long you've lived in Portland, but the Trimet routes in NE Portland haven't changed since about 1986 (8-15th ave, 9-Broadway/24th st, 10-33rd street). Riders know where the routes go.
The problem with the streetcar is that it serves a very limited part of the population and is very expensive to install. If you have to get from your house in Gresham to your job on NE 122nd street, the streetcar isn't going to do squat for you. If you're commuting from SW Portland to Lake Oswego, good luck riding the streetcar there. The vast majority of the city's residents don't live anywhere near the streetcar, yet the streetcar gets a disproportionate amount of funding.
Buses can be adapted to transportation needs. If a large job site opens in Gresham, a bus route can easily be placed nearby. If ridership tails off in an area, bus frequency can be curtailed. It's a much more efficient use of resources than the streetcar.
What about electric buses? They do exist. What about smaller buses (less weight) that run more frequently?
For a city that prides themselves on out-of-the-box thinking, Portland leaders (ahem) are sure quick to jump on old-school hardwired infrastructure systems as non-solutions instead of looking for options that are adaptable and affordable. Probably because it's less sexy and won't provide great photo ops.
These 7 ideas would make Portland even a worse city. STOP TRYING TO KILL THE CAR!
ha ha ha hah a ha ha hah ah!!!!!!!!
Interesting article but, as usual, there is a tiny important little boo boo in need of correction. As someone recently returned from a few years living in Canada I feel obligated to correct your labeling the Liberal party as Canada's "nearest thing to the Republican party." WRONGO! The Conservative party is the country's right wing party, the Liberal is pretty much right down the middle and the New Democrats are the most liberal major party. As Oregonians have such a slavish regard for the Great White North, you may find it in your best interest to do some actual fact checking so as not to end up looking like ignorant self important dicks.
Read it again, Ken. The Conservatives don't have any power in B.C.
"Gloom and Doom"
A major lacking in your article is the completely dark perspective you cast on the past and present efforts of the city to address environmental and sustainability issues.
For example you state ":And let’s not forget those “sewer overflows,” which is a nice way of saying the Willamette River fills with shit when it rains" but you also fail to state that a 1 billion dollar + project has been on-going for a few years to address this and that the vast majority of the time, the Willamette R. is swimmable and fishable. Go back to the 1940's and you would not recognize the same rime due to the levels of industrial development and pollution.
There is a real problem that many of the environmental groups are represented by the doom-Sayers. Instead let's identify the problems, work on fixing them, and celebrate when we succeed. Other wise, we get caught up in a perpetual level of pessimistic fear.
The article mentions nothing about water pollution. Portland has taken some small but admirable steps in reducing stormwater runoff and the pollution it carries. Suburbs take note.
"Because the B.C. plan cuts other taxes to make up for the pollution penalty, it comes out a wash.
The genius of the carbon tax is that it makes not conserving energy about as smart as cashing out your 401(k) to go on spring break with PSU basketball players down in Cabo."
WooHoo! Again B.C. proves to be way way ahead of the curve in North America. This is what the whole world needs to do.
I recommend a trip to Van BC to see how great it has become in the past 20 years. Portland is the nation's "Smart Growth" leader but Van BC INVENTED it years before we started copying them. And compact Smart Growth is the ULTIMATE environmental "thing" any city can do. American sprawl is the reason Americans have to commute an average of 40 miles a day resulting in our total dependent addiction on using 25% of he worlds oil pumped every day and the paving of 2 acres of farmland and wildlife habitat every minute in America !
This is a great article comparing Seattle, Van BC and Portland.
This article has some great ideas-- I take issue, though, with increasing the deposit for cans and bottles and expanding the bottle bill. I don't know how much time advocates of the bottle bill spend actually returning their bottles and cans, but it is not a pleasant experience. It also turns bottles and cans into a commodity. When I lived in Northwest Portland, I was often privy to transients trespassing on my building's property to take bottles and cans, and was many times awakened by the sounds of people rifling through the recycling. The solution to keeping bottles/cans and other recyclables out of landfills is not to increase the deposit, and unfairly penalize those who recycle at the curb. The solution is to dramatically increase garbage rates, as was done in Japan. As reported by NPR, Japan saw a huge and immediate change in recycling rates as a result.
I also oppose any expansion of bus service over streetcars. Buses are the old paradigm, and oil is going to be $10 and $20 a gallon before we know it. (Where will fares be then?) A huge number of cities (including Portland) used to have streetcars until the automobile industry gave free buses to the cities, and the shortsighted cities tore up their streetcar tracks. The new streetcars the city is planning are going to be in numerous neighborhoods, and will be faster than the one existing streetcar. Besides that, they are a long-term, sustainable solution to the fact that oil is only getting more expensive, and is arguably running out. Better to make a smart investment now than wait until it is even more expensive later.
It costs magnitudes more to install a streetcar line than to begin new bus service. In your post you mention "oil is going to be $10 and $20 a gallon" - I presume that you mean diesel. Diesel is just one component in the cost of operating a bus - there are also wages, maintenance costs, capital equipment costs.
If diesel and gasoline were to become that expensive, there is no reason that Tri-Met fares would rise to the same extent as diesel, because other costs would not have risen as quickly. In fact, when fuel costs hit that level, Tri-Mets ridership could substantially increase and the per-person fare could remain stagnant or even decline as buses become more crowded and Tri-Met is able to spread its operating costs over more passengers.
The streetcar is a very expensive way to serve a very small percentage of the total population. It is much cheaper to increase bus service than to build more streetcar lines.
A few things:
To the person who ranted about the dressed up business woman who couldn't possibly bike to work with all the hills: Aside from the West Hills, what hills are you talking about? And take a look at Portland business wear, it's quite casual. (Plus the idea is to have a change of clothes). And it isn't the soccer mom who needs to get on the bike, it's all the single rider cars packing the roadways that need to get on two wheels and clear the way for the buses. A lot of people who COULD ride don't, and that needs to change.
To the inconvenience of bringing bottles and cans back to the store: sometimes doing the right thing is a little inconvenient. Suck it up you lazy jerks. Although I do like the garbage charge. How is it we don't separate bio trash anyhow? Netherlands & Germany been doing it for 20 years.
I live in London now and the congestion charge rocks. London retailers aren't complaining and that's with ridiculously expensive train system. If the city is worth its weight, people will come no matter what. And Portland is worth it isn't it?
The long and short of our dilemma is accepting that we can't keep going on the way we've gone. More cars, more highways, more suburbs... it's all wrong. We need a paradigm shift in our thinking and Portland is taking some chances. We may not be the greenest city (does everything have to be a competition?), but we're better than most. Keep the ideas flowing Portland.
Uh, Danny, London has this thing called the underground? Been in development since the 1800's? Kind of goes EVERYWHERE! If we had a system in place like that here, transit would be a no brainer. You can't compare Portland to London, Apples and gorillas.
Uh, outercity, the underground doesn't go "EVERYWHERE". The tube serves the center of the city (along with buses) with a select number of lines that stretch further out (not to where I live). I'm comparing cherry tomatoes to hothouses. Portland doesn't have the underground because it's a fraction of it's size, but the principle is the same. People here park and ride in on trains/tube (crowded, frought with their own issues, etc.), bike (worse weather and bike-infrastructure mind you), and the city has the congestion charge to 'encourage' us to do so.
All the single drivers on 26 in the morning should be on the MAX. It's laziness and a sense of entitlement that keeps things status quo. I'm sure you're waiting for the "no-brainer" flying car that delivers you door to door, but in the meantime, how about you take one for the team and hop on the bus?
By the way, who else wishes the Interstate MAX really went 'inter-state'?
Mike - good to hear!
Danny - The comment that the single drivers on 26 should be on MAX is way off the mark.
What if someone lives in Hillsboro and works in SE Portland? The commute would take much longer than it would by driving. This takes time away from the commuter being with his family as he slogs across town and has to transfer.
Also, with all of the development north of HWY 26, these people don't live anywhere near the MAX line. How should they ride MAX when the parking garage at 26 & 217 is always full?
The only thing off the mark was your literal reading of the word "all". To be clear, MOST of the single drivers on 26 could/should be on the MAX. Can we not use exceptions when making policy please. Everyone "knows a guy" who would fall outside the target of policy decisions. The point is to catch as many as possible, and the outliers can continue as usual.
Commute equals family breakdown is a red herring. Puh-lease.
If the Portland metro area continues to grow, won't traffic get worse and worse, thus keeping loving moms and dad in traffic? Do you suggest wider freeways? Double-deckers? Read again - PARADIGM SHIFT.
And yes, I agree that the MAX should be expanded and more Park & Ride facilities built. C'mon Washington County!
Ok, Danny. I didn't say anything about long commutes causing "family breakdown", but I know that I would rather spend time with my family than riding MAX, transferring in the rain to a bus line that then goes way slower than my car to get to work.
I commute from Vancouver to downtown Portland on a C-Tran bus. The reason is because I live right near the bus stop, so the incremental time in my schedule is worth the dollar savings in gas and car wear and tear. However, if you think that people will spend an extra 30 minutes on their commute to ride transit and get out of their comfy cars, you probably shouldn't hold your breath. Again, most of those single cars aren't traveling from a MAX station to downtown Portland. People are scattered throughout Washington county and have multiple destinations throughout the metro area. If you're going from Beaverton to Vancouver, MAX isn't going to get you there and even if it did, driving would be faster.
And yes - we should widen the freeways. It's ridiculous that I-5, the major west corridor for freight, is only two lanes wide in the middle of Portland.
@Danny--
Portland does collect bio trash from some large sources like restaurants. The company that composts it is looking for a large site in Portland, if they find one they will be able to take residential bio trash at curbside.
I like the stat about Portlanders driving on average 3 miles less a year - or something like that. You would think it would be a lot less wouldn't you?
ANY discussion of Portland's supposed greenness (or lack thereof) must start with hard data. It's always good to see data, as opposed to anecdote.
We seem to start from the assumed position that of course Portland is green as can be, and let the data be damned. We just ignore data points that don't support our beliefs.
In fact, we should go the other way. Only if the data support it do we crown Portland the green capital. Is Portland greener than Houston, Philadelphia, Denver? Doubtful.
First question would be, what are ten meaningful metrics to measure greenness? Then we run the numbers on American cities. I have a hard time believing that Portland will be anything other than slightly above average.
The streetcar is a colossal waste of money. Electric bus system would be much better and more adaptable to future changes. As a mode of transport, the streetcar is virtually worthless. You can walk faster than the streetcar in most places. It's simply a fun thing to ride on, but it cannot be held up as a serious mass transit solution, and when you look at the dollars it sucks away from other options, it's an old school boon doogle.
Portland has this ability to hold fast to sacred cow beliefs no matter what the reality is. Another example of this is the proliferation of horrendously ugly condo towers going up in the Pearl and South Waterfront. And Burnside.
I would venture to say these are some of the ugliest buildings to be found anywhere in America. This is not "smart growth"; it's decimation of our neighborhoods.
Portland may be blessed with amazing local food, art, beer etc., but when it comes to architecture we missed the band wagon. We're creating the new urbanism ghettos that seem inspired by the post WW II Warsaw look. But again, no matter what we do, we keep believing we're in the vanguard.
We say a lot of great things, but you have to look at what we do. It's what we do that matters. And if you look at what we actually do, a lot of it is developer and real estate driven schlock - just like anywhere else in the US.
There is a green bubble you can live in if you are in close-in Portland. Inside this bubble, life truly is outstanding. You can walk to work, exist on foot (mostly).
But that is a small percentage of people in the metro area. Our decision-making for the metro area cannot be driven by this tiny group's experience. Outside of that bubble there is a lot of ugliness and world class paving going on. We ignore that at our peril.
We're not so different.
I totally agree Emperor. Unless, Portland, and the rest of the state, develops sustainable communities whereby people have to travel less to get decent services, and don't have to live and work in the downtown "bubble", things won't change. And South Waterfront? What a ghastly waste. Ungly condos for the very rich, mostly OHSU administrators with a sterile atmosphere, served by a tourist tram of OHSU employees and a streetcar that I can outrun. I also don't care for the buses, which likely spews out as much pollution as all the cars it supposedly replaces. Electric buses would seem to be good, or buses that are cleaner burning. Portland's buses are horrible polluters. As much as I hate to admit it, the NYC subway system is probably the most useful and widely covered mass transit systems in the country.
For the bottle deposit critics:
The biggest reason that it's worth continuing to improve our bottle bill system is that curbside recycling doesn't work for single-serving beverage bottles. Most of these are purchased and consumed on the go (think about how many people stop at 7-11 for a drink vs. how many people get a flat of individual bottles to drink at home).
The proof? During the 1990s, access to curbside recycling nationwide increased dramatically (I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it at least doubled), but recycling of beverage containers declined during the same time period.
You are right about Portland metro sprawl. We may have an urban growth boundary but it is expanded every few years which just controls it rather than stopping it or slowing it down. We have to either put a brake on any more sprawl or redesign it for mass transit oriented growth only. The average American commute is now 40 miles a day which is the main reason Americans use 7 times more oil per capita than Europeans or Japanese. American Sprawl is also one of the main reasons builders went on a building spree, which has now reulted in our housing bubble crash which greatly threatens the US economy. Sprawl is in short very unsustainable.
Portland has long been a Smart Growth leader in the US but we need to get more serious about it or our gains will be only minimal. We have fallen far behind Vancouver BC gains from Smart Growth. I was there last summer and their downtown is more vibrant than Manhattan's. Retail stores are open until 10 or 12 evry night. Sidewalks filled with pedestrians day and night. I was amazed. Their new 7 year old "Yale Town" is amazing as well. High condo skinny towers surrounding a big waterfront park with fountains and walkways. Here's a good article that summarizes Vancouver BC and Portland /Seattle differences.
#1. Sorry, plastic isn't re-usable? They are made from recycled product and are recyclable. Granted, they are usually made of petroleum which isn't a good thing. They can be made of soybeans and other agro-waste. But the tax and controls people want to impose are Socialist propaganda. Plastic is already supposed to be recycled. If it's not and being dumped into landfill by, say... I don't know... Waste Management Services, then they should be fined or have their license pulled. And if everyone is so concerned, are we gonna see something about the dog poo laws? No one thinks about how many bags go straight into landfill from that and are city mandated law.
"Plastic bags may take hundreds of years to decompose in a landfill" -May take hundreds of years? Know one knows? Then why did you say hundreds of years if no one knows. You just contradicted yourself with FUD.
#2. "A strong dollar" - The loonie rose because of a commodities bubble that is now starting to pop. The USD has fallen sharply which makes all other currencies look like they are skyrocketing when they are just rising modestly or slowly.
"Big oil" isn't going to give anything back. Are you kidding me?! It will be another way to milk the taxpayer. The whole biofuel movement is a sham to prop up agro-commodities. It's already visible on the ethanol front. ADM and Monsanto are reaping huge profits while food prices soar all over the globe. Unless your making the fuel at your house, it's a sham. Oh yes, everybody wants higher energy bills too. Ya that's great. If Oregon was really smart, they would start pouring money into geothermal like there is no tomorrow. Get rid of dams. Use a little nuclear, a little wind and a bunch of geo.
"B.C. plan cuts other taxes to make up for the pollution penalty, it comes out a wash. " -That means, tax cuts for the wealthiest elite,or corporations : 1 to 2 % not the general public.
#3.Congestion taxing. A means of Socialist control on the public. The money will line the pockets of the elite. The reason no one takes the MAX is because it doesn't go anywhere that's useful. It goes left and right for the most part. Yet businesses are already taxed heavily if they are in the TriMet district. Where does all this money go? Politicians and crony's pockets, that's where. Also, construction projects are the biggest cash cow of politicians. That's why it takes... I don't know... over 2 years to fix the Burnside bridge.
"Oregon and Washington state planners have talked about a form of congestion pricing on the new I-5 bridge project, the Columbia River Crossing" - Answer me this, there is already an Amtrak rail line across the river. Why aren't both cities cutting a deal with Amtrak to lease the tracks for rapid rail going back and forth between Vancouver and Portland? That can be done right now for little money. Amtrak was nationalized a long time ago by the FEDS. There is no reason why they shouldn't do their part, or put a heavy toll on them for interstate traveling if they don't lease out the rails.
#4. This is what central banking is. Now the local gov wants to be central banks for the populace. This is why America is in a bust right now. There is no free lunch people. You are stupid if you follow this policy.
#5. The reason you have crappy transit is because it doesn't make any money. It is a business in the red that is milked by politicians. It was never intended to make money. That is why there are no turn styles to make people pay for fares. Does that make any business sense to you? You want better transit? Turn TriMet over to a private company and out of government hands. Get rid of TriMet taxes and make everyone pay the fare. If it makes a profit, the owners will make it better for it's costumers and keep them happy. They would have to or go out of business. If government runs it, it will never make a profit and it will always suffer.
#6.People aren't looking for curbside parking, they are looking for any parking! Since there are no driveways hardly in downtown metro, few parking lots, what choice do people have. It also creates safety problems. You can't see on-coming traffic or pedestrians on sidewalks as easily when there are cars lined on the streets. That's why people roll past stop signs and sometimes come close to hitting pedestrians. They can't see. Parking would be solved by transit. Transit can't be solved until it's out of gov. hands. It's a vicious cycle imposed by politicians to create public control and line pockets. But hey, at least they aren't running the street cleaning racket, like Chicago does, here yet.
#7."Tough noogies. The Legislature should throw milk containers in the mix, too. Alberta, Canada, is doing it, and presumably an Oregonian can open a powdered-milk box as well as a Canadian can. Or buy the black-market, unpasteurized stuff.
And don’t just double the deposit—fix it for inflation. A nickel in 1971 is worth 26 cents today. We’ll settle for a quarter. " - This is obviously someone who does not understand what inflation is or how supply and demand works. The is Socialist propaganda. If you impose fees on business, business will pass them on to their customers. It will be visible or invisible, but it will happen. Businesses will support recycling when it actually helps them and not hinders them. Recycling makes sense from an ecological sustainability standpoint. And it can make sense from a production cost standpoint when implemented right. But when it's forced on people and usually for another agenda than what's stated, it doesn't work. The only people going after bottle deposits are the homeless, and they spend more time collecting, that it would be more profitable to get a fast food job than do bottle returns. That is, if there was a fast food job to be had in Portland. Jobs is another issue.
You want to fix things. It's simple. Cut all taxes and get rid of government as much as possible. Let the communities establish their own fees to their constituents to pay for projects. Treat people with capital friendly so they want to invest here and not stick their money somewhere else. Capital goes where capital is treated best. That's why Dubai has 70% of the worlds construction cranes there right now. Being tax happy will get you more misery. More taxes and inflation have never helped any society through-out history. Guaranteed.
What I'm sayimg is that it's only gonna cost people more. 99% of people in PDX recycle already. It's just that 84% get their nickel back. No more people will recycle than already do, so the only effect of this is people paying more $$$. With the cost of food rising so fast, I cannot believe that an idea to add to those cost would be touted as a solution to Global Climate Change. We need to stop thinking punitively, STOP equating "Saving the Earth" with money at all. It's not about money. Unless it's making money by coming up with new innovative technologies that will make a difference and a profit.
Thats my 2 cents...I'm Ron Burgundy??
Very good points you make devour. New ideas to the mix. Thank you.
I love your #6. So true. All of it food for thought.
Wow WW...WOW! What an article indeed. This will surely help Portland go green. That is if by going green you are referring to sucking every bit of green out of our wallets and bank accounts. With the exception of one of these points, #4, every single one of these ideas involve getting more money from the working class and not doing a thing to actually improve the environmental crisis we face.
#1 there should be no choice to add a tax to plastic bags OR ban them, all the tax will do is add more of an increase to already rising cost of foods, the stores will add that into the cost (as they actually already do , add in the cost of materials such as plastic bags)and the majority of people will be none the wiser. So we will PAY MORE and use the same amount of plastic bags. IF you wanted to be truly progressive, and not just claim to be to impress people and feel good about yourselves, you would call for a ban on plastic bags. To help reduce them polluting our world we don't need to charge people money, we need to get rid of them.
#2 The Carbon Tax , sounds great if your a 20 something with no dependents that lives either off a trust fund, or in a building where you don't have to pay to heat your home. This is outright atrocity. Charging people more money for what they need the most. If you were TRULY progressive, you would take into account all people not just the trendy hipsters and old hippies that live downtown. MANY low income families struggle to heat their homes each winter, and taxing them more is not going to help anybody. Taxing gas prices more WILL NOT stop people from driving more. Case in point, gas prices have doubled in the last 2 1/2 years, do people drive less, NO they just have less money to spend elsewhere (like mortgages, and food) I ride my bike to work 4 out of 5 days a week, BUT I'm "progressive"(a bullshit word) enough to
realize NOT EVERYONE CAN. A LOT of people live in rural communities, and live under circumstances where they need to drive simply to get to work. IF you were truly progressive, you wouldn't try to take more of their already meager wages by adding more tax to their fuel you would think of an actual solution to the energy crisis. Charging people more money is the solution to global warming to the people at WW, judging by this sloppy article.
#3 Do you know why cities like London and NYC can charge people who drive into the city?....DO YOU??? It's because they have an infinitely better public transportation system than Portland. I can't tell you haw many articles, and letters I've read about how Portlanders don't need to be compared to NYC....unless it fits their agenda apparently. London and NYC offer great, timely and safe public transportation to all areas of their cities (not just one district) and such if you feel the need to drive into the city you are doing so either out of a once in a while neccesity, or it's a luxury you can afford. EITHER WAY Portland is so behind the times with offering good public trasnportation to anyone who lives North of the Freemont bridge that this congestion fee, would again only impact the low income people of this town. IF you want to be TRULY "proggressive" you would add more light rails (outside of the pearl) AND more buses. (this will also apply to #5)
#4 the only decent idea proposed in this article, AND the only idea that doesn't try to make money instead of actually helping.
#5 "Before you assume we�re asking for yet more tax dollars, wait. We�re suggesting something else: fewer dollars�for streetcars." This is the kind of double speak one would expect from GWB or his cronies. This is probably the most elitist part of this article. Instead of adding more bus lines to help the masses do things like , uhhh GO TO WORK, OR RELIEVE CONGESTION DOWNTOWN, you want to add another streetcar. The first streetcar is a disaster. I know many people who work downtown who like to walk instead of using that joke streetcar, because they can walk faster than it moves through traffic. The other seriously flawed part of this solution is that it will help ONLY tourist and the VERY FEW who live downtown. Most of the taxpayers in this city who paid for that streetcar, will never see the benefit of it. It doesn't serve us (the people) it serves tourist and the elite few who live on the west side, well let me tell you there is more to this town than the west side. The North and south NEED more buses. It takes me 30 minutes to catch a bus on average, HOW will a new streetcar help me. HMMMM I'm waiting HOW???? Exactly it won't. To be TRULY "progressive" we need to increase the buses AND increase Light rail lines throughout the city. You throw out examples of how other cities do it, well other cities have mass transit for their people, NOT PORTLAND. The Max could expand it lines easier and more cost effectively if they simply took a cue from every other city in the world that has undergone a massive population influx, and actually start charging everyone who rides the max. Install turnstiles, then the cost of riding could go down because everyone would pay to ride not just 1 out of every 15 people. The streetcar is a gimmick, and a joke, and it will end up costing MORE in the long run because we will still need more buses after we waste money on Sam Adams Pet Projects.
#6 Eh This isn't horrible, but you gotta admit Portland makes a TON of money already of it's style of meters, This will make them green with money, but won't do a damn thing to help save the environment. Keep thinking, just don't stop at your first idea.
#7 This is once again one of the most asinine things I have ever read. You want to claim to not need to look at other cities when it comes to things like Oh I don't know making a great mass transit system, but if another city comes up with an idea to take more money from people your on board, Gee WW are you guys Republicans, because you sure like to look for unfair ways to make money while ignoring the real issues.)
"Michigan is the only state that charges a 10-cent bottle deposit. Oregon�s deposit is 5 cents, the same as it was when this state passed the country�s first bottle bill, in 1971. In one state, 98 percent of deposits get redeemed, and the bottles get recycled. In the other state, only 84 percent do. Can you guess which is which?"
Hmmm, well how about this Mr. Mis-Leading question asker...
In one state 98% of people recycle their bottles to get the deposit back, in the other 84% does, and the other 16% recycle their bottles without getting the deposit back...Can YOU guess which is which. Thats right the second is Oregon, which means that in Oregon gets to pocket the deposits of the 16% of people that STILL recycle their bottles (like me) Which means Michigan makes less money off of this than does Oregon, but Oregon actually has the same amount of recyclers (if not more) I recycle my bottles and DON'T get the 5 cents back, and so do MANY MANY others, so you r statistic is flawed because we already have more recycling here, just not to get our nickel back, we do it because we care. Now if you raise the deposit to 25 cents a bottle (an extra 1.50 tacked onto your already rising beer cost of almost $9 a 6-pack) I would only recycle a places where I get my deposit back, and so would others, which would actually mean less money for the state from deposit they currently get to keep, and the same amount of recycling.
So in summation WW you get a D- for this sloppy journalism. All you are doing here is giving ammunition to the right wing. They will hold this up and say "LOOK, all they want to do is tax you for Global Warming" and the sad thing is..They're right. We need real solutions, not just monetary punishments to help our planet. And those solutions are out there, but NONE of what you wrote about will help reduce energy use, or help the environment, OR help thse on the fence about it to join the cause of helping the environment. If you want to be TRULY "progressive" think of solutions, not money making schemes that will further hurt the poor and working class, and widen the gap between environmentalist and those who don't believe in Global Climate Change issues.
Tommy Hood,
N Portland
Tommy - #7 - the bottle deposit doesn't go to "Oregon" or the state of Oregon or 7-11. It goes to beverage distributors. When a bottle or can isn't returned for deposit, the beverage distributor gets to keep the $0.05 it charged the retailer for the deposit.
The small deposit adds up big-time for distributors. For a lot of people, it's not worth the effort to recycle every can and bottle at the grocery store, but it would be worth the effort if it was $0.25 an item. Over time, I have no idea how much consumers are losing by not returning cans, but it's the distributors smiling all the way to the bank.
Tommy, Does everything revolve around you?
Notice that it said some of the the Payroll tax will be SUBSTITUTED by the Carbon tax! If you think of taxes as a kind of useful tool to decrease what is being taxed what makes more sense? Work or Greenhouse gas production? Think of the Carbon tax as a Sin Tax. America is way too addicted to oil and other fossil fuels in general. It will reduce he carbon gases and increase renewable clean energy. With Global Warming threatening to melt the Arctic Tundra's vast greenhouse gas methane deposits we have no other choice. As far as the poor, tax rebates or credits are easily worked out.
Streetcars are the way to go in the inner to mid city anyway. Business owners along the streetcar route will tell you how much it has helped their business. Michael Powell of Powell's was an opponenet at first now he is a promoter because it helped his business so much.
Think of streetcars as installing the infrastructure needed for mixed-use development along its route, businesses and high density housing so we can get alot more people to use mass transit than now.
There is something about streetcars and lightrail that make the rich much more willing to leave their big gas guzzling Yukons at home than buses.
Buses will still be necessary out in the burbs though.
Buses are very heavy as well so cause alot of damage to the asphalt. With every doubling of weight of vehicles you get about 10 times the damage.
In short streetcars are an excellent long term investment compared to buses.
Erik J it would seem your opening statement betrays you...Does it all have to be about you.
I for one am for proactive "truly progressive " solutions to global climate change, such as new technologies, NOT punitive potentially economically harmful ways to punish those who cannot afford it. Adding more taxes to heating bills, and to the fuel bills of those people who live in truly ural areas and can barely afford to get to work will not help the environment. CHARGING MONEY TO PUNISH PEOPLE WILL NOT HELP THE ENVIRONMENT...get it. We need real solutions, Higher gas mileage, real alternative fuels (hydrogen, NOT ETHANOL, food is for peoples bellies NOT CARS)As far as the street car, like I said everyone I talk to says they would rather walk than wait in traffic on the streetcar. (which by the way no one pays to ride, but like the MAX that system needs to be revamped as well to become more self sustaining)Whereas I was lobbying for all Portland residents (yes thats right Portland city limits extend outside of the west side) to have access to fair public transportation, you seem to only want the residents of NW to be able to have public transportation. (oh by the way WE ALL foot the bill for those streetcars that only about 10% of taxpayers get the benefit from) It definitely WON'T save money in the long run Because after the immensely inefficient and expensive Streetcar is installed, The bus lines (that service us in the north, and those in the south YES we're not in the "BURBS" We live in city limits) will still have to be expanded, as well as MAX lines that service more in the North and south of PDX. Your view point is very Non-Progressive for all of the people that need true and efficient mass transit. Try thinking about others for a change.
Stockguy, Thanks I didn't know where the money went exactly, but my point is still that we have the same amount of people recycling now that we would if they raise the bottle deposit. It's just that now we don't all go to get our nickles back, we do it because it is right, and it helps our environment, and it is more of a sustainable and responsible way of life. Where as in Michigan apparently more people recycle to get their deposits back. If we raise the bottle deposit, the same amount of recycling will happen (as Im sure the % of people who recycle in PDX is in the high 90%) But we will have to do more damage to the environment by driving a car load of bottles to the store to get my Quarter deposit back, instead of using NO carbon fuels by walking my bottles to the curb.
Tommy - very few people are going to drive to the grocery store just to return their bottles and cans, especially given the current price of gas. People return the items as part of their normal grocery routine that would have required driving to the store anyway.
The current system is broken because consumers don't get much of an incentive to return the cans and bottles because of the low deposit. However, private enterprises (the distributors) are keeping the deposit money, so in the end, the $0.05 deposit is a detriment to the public good.
Plastic Bags Last 100 Years? Mine come apart before they get home from Walmart!!!
Like all such articles I was completely on board right up until the words "reduce CO2 gases which cause global warming".
The CO2 bandwagon is seriously out of control and almost none of those making such statements have really dug into the science/politics.
There are a million reasons to reduce oil use, CO2 is NOT one of them. And certainly not at the cost of starving the world and stripping rain forests to make room for biofuel crops. Starvation is increasing in the world thanks to biofuel mania.
99% of climatologists would disagree with you. But I think youre right about ethanol. If we could increase average gas mileage by one mile a gallon we could save enough oil equivalent to the amount in ANWR. But Big Oil/Ag doesnt want to hear that. They want to keep brainwashing the masses like you.
Ethanol is a warm fuzzy way to make people feel good, unless your one of the billions of people starving because food is being grown so some one can drive to Bend for the weekend. Food is for bellies, NOT CARS!!! I agree with you guys, ethanol is a step in the right way of thinking in that we need to explore alternatives, but ethanol is not the solution. WE NEED TO STOP ETHANOL PRODUCTION, and find a truly more renewable source of energy, hmmmm such as hydrogen.
great article. If we can write and pass crappy legislative bills, we can certainly write, pass and implement good ones, as viewed in this article.