A few days ago, Lights On Oregon was the first to break the total estimated per person economic ramifications of Governor Kulongoski’s new gas tax. Kulongoski’s proposed tax increases will cost on average an additional $176 per person per year. What is the reason for this proposed tax? Governor Kulongoski claims that

This is the way to get Oregon out of this economic crisis.

Next question, what economic crisis is Oregon’s Government suffering from? We are told that there is a “One billion dollar budget shortfall.” This is close to a straight out lie. The “shortfall” stems from the Oregon revenue office over estimating tax revenues. The projected revenues for the State of Oregon fell by some $946 million from earlier projects. But, the current budget project is still some $900 million greater than the last budgeting cycle. Oregon Government’s revenue is not falling at all. It is projected to increase 3.5% per year for the next two years. This means the state revenue will increase from $15.2 billion to $16.1 billion.

The Governor’s new budget has nearly $2 billion in tax increases and “revenue adjustments” (i.e., higher taxes). In the new budget, services like veterans affairs are being decreased by some 16% and the state’s bureaucratic agencies are being increased (Department of Human Services +18%, Administrative Services +23%).

And finally, here’s what is most striking, in this “budget crisis” Kulongoski is adding some 1,500 new positions to Oregon Government. The absurdity of this is clear when one considers that fact that in October alone, Oregon lost 14,000 jobs. How do new taxes and new government employees help the struggling businesses and individuals in Oregon?

The Governor’s new taxes are simply nonsensical. Oregon Government is not in any “budget crisis.” If they were, they would not be adding 1,500 new positions.

Oppose the Governor’s new tax increase: it’s bad for Oregon.

According to the Oregonian:

Over the past couple of months, Oregon has lost more than 10,000 jobs, and a recently announced $1 billion state budget shortfall gave the state’s economy and its workers another punch in the gut. With the state headed into a recession — and losing good-paying jobs that support Oregon families — we need to seize opportunities to get people working again.

The Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal is just such an opportunity. Its construction alone would put 450 skilled union laborers to work for three years, and it would supply Oregon with a needed new supply of natural gas.

Tom Chamberlain the President of the Oregon AFL-CIO, goes on to argue that

Stabilizing energy costs is crucial for our region’s future. And while we should vigorously pursue renewable energy, natural gas can serve as a bridge to the cleaner energy future we all want. Furthermore, not all proposed LNG projects provide the safety, security, environmental protection and good jobs provided by Bradwood Landing.

Northwest Natural estimates that based on the transportation savings alone, Bradwood would save its customers more than $400 million over 20 years versus other supply options.

President Chamberlain hits all of the right points. The benefits of the Bradwood LNG terminal far outweigh the “problems” (to use the word loosely) that have been raised in opposition to it. Nevertheless, radical environmental groups continue to oppose the project. There comes a point when one must ask why?

Why do radical environmentalists oppose something that is good for Oregon?

1. The Oregonian reported this morning that

Portland city leaders have offered wind-power giant Vestas Wind Systems $12.5 million in cash incentives to build a $250 million North American headquarters here.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again. We support the free market approach to renewable energy. Forcing the taxpayers to fork even more out of their pockets is not what we need.

2. More budget problems. According to the Statesman Journal:

The state’s Nov. 19 forecast projects $16.1 billion for the next two years in the general fund. The total is still 7 percent more than in the current two-year budget of $15.1 billion, which itself is up 21 percent from 2005-07. But it is less than the $17 billion projected back in June, and even the $16.8 billion on Aug. 28 — and it could go down still more before lawmakers adjourn next summer.

Kulongoski said last week that a troubling indicator was the statewide unemployment rate, which jumped nearly a full point in October to 7.3 percent - the largest one-month increase in Oregon since April 1980, and above the national average of 6.5 percent.

We think someone could use some better budgeting skills. Government spending is up some 30% from 2005. Here’s a thought: spend less—and we won’t have budget shortages.

Just a thought.

Here’s a piece of news that’s probably not being reported. According to a Moore Information poll of Portland, the majority of people support LNG terminals. The report found that:

An LNG terminal is favored by 56%, and opposed by 16%. The remaining 29% have no opinion.

Radical Environmentalists have mounted a savage opposition against LNG, or Liquefied Natural Gas. Currently there are a two proposed LNG terminals, though only one of them would ever be built.

A question should be considered. Why do we, at Lights On Oregon, refer to groups like Columbia Riverkeeper, or the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club as “radical”?

Let us explain.

We at Lights On Oregon care about the environment. In fact, in the classical sense of the word we are “environmentalists.” However, environmentalism, like anything, can be taken to an illogical extreme. We’ve shown that the proposed LNG terminal is good for both Oregon and the nation. We’ve also shown why it is necessary. And finally, we’ve shown the radical environmental opposition to the LNG terminal(s).

So what makes radical environmental groups radical? The simple fact that they are actually hurting the environment because by their own actions. The antithesis of environmentalism is radical environmentalism.

Just after the fall elections were decided, our Governor, Ted Kulongoski (D), declared that he supports:

1. Raising the state gas-tax by 2 cents per gallon (a 8.5% increase)

2. Doubling the vehicle titling fee to $110 (a 100% increase)

3. Raising the vehicle registration free from $27 a year to $81 (a 300% increase)

4. Creating a $100-a-year fee for titling cars new to the state

5. These tax increases will cost Oregonians around $500 million more a year

Let’s work some numbers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 3,700,758 citizens (C) of the State of Oregon. Of these, 23.1% are under (U) the age of 18. For our purposes, we will assume that no one under 18 is a motorist (M) (this, of course, is not true. However, not everyone over 18 is a motorist, and many older individuals do not drive, thus the difference is easily made up). C x U = 854,857. C - U = M 2,845,901. Thus, $500,000,000 the projected yearly increase (I) in taxes is divided between the number of motorists (M). I ÷ M = $175.69.

Kulongoski is proposing that taxes should be increased, on average, $176 per person per year. Now, let’s hypothesize that on average the current resident of Oregon will remain here 10 more years (Y). I x Y = $1,760.

Congratulations. You just wrote the Governor of the State of Oregon a check for just a little under $2,000.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, In 2006 Oregon had a per capita personal income of $33,299. That means over the next ten years, you will spend an extra 2.75 weeks (around 14 days) working to pay this new tax (inflation not accounted for).

We, at Lights On Oregon strongly oppose this tax increase. In fact, we are actively opposing it. However, we need your help. Email the Governor and the Legislature now. This fight isn’t over yet.

According to the Daily Astorian:

“Activists now decry windmills with a fervour once reserved for nuclear plants”….Opponents, however, say they are driven by concerns about windmills’ effects on everything from bird migration…to earthworms.

Now, with this in mind, let’s consider a recent Boston Globe article:

[In Canada] soaring white wind turbines generate electricity for a surprising customer 650 miles to the south: Massachusetts.

And much more Canadian renewable energy could be coming. Developers are building or planning nearly four dozen wind and hydroelectric projects in the next four years, enough to power more than a million homes.

Canada is the biggest exporter of oil to the United States, [but now we are exchanging] dependence on foreign oil for dependence on foreign wind.

Do we see how this is working? Massachusetts is exchanging the importation of oil for the importation of energy generated from wind. To be frank, this is not helping the cause for energy independence. In fact, it is hurting it. One of the major benefits to renewable energy sources (like wind, geothermal, etc.) is that fact that they contribute to energy independence. Currently we, as Oregonians and as Americans rely on other nations for our energy. However, this does not need to be the case. Instead of importing wind energy from Canada, Massachusetts should build its own wind turbines, and produce their own renewable energy.

Let this be a warning for Oregon.

While we in Oregon have been working on achieving the removal of our hydroelectric dams, officials in Michigan has begun to process of reviving their dams.

In Oregon we’re saying:

[Because of the dam removal] the utility [companies have] agree[d] to pay $500,000 a year for fish habitat improvements until the dams are removed….Dam removal costs [are] to be borne by ratepayers [with] surcharges…to PacifiCorp’s 500,000 customers in Oregon. That’s about $1.65 a month that many hard-pressed people might not like seeing on their electric bills….If Wednesday’s ambitious Klamath Basin agreement holds up…the result will be historic. It would pave the way for the biggest dam removal project in the nation.

In Michigan their saying:

Charles Peterson of Peterson Machinery Sales said he will pay for all needed upgrades to three Boardman River dams if he is allowed to operate the structures for hydroelectric power generation….City Administrator Terry Eull says interest in renewable energy is growing because of a new Michigan law requiring utilities to get 10 percent of their power from green sources by 2015. “We’ve had this plan in mind for some time….”

I’m not going to argue for or against the removal of the Klamath dam. But what I will argue is that mindset is extraordinarily important. In Michigan, they seem to be working towards affordable, renewable, and clean energy. In Oregon, for better or for worse, we’re destroying our current sources of renewable energy and forcing restrictive mandates on our companies. Our mindset does not seem to be progressive. It does not seem like we are working towards renewable, clean, and affordable energy. It seems we’re going the wrong direction.

“You could potentially make geothermal last essentially forever,” John Blackwell–SMU Geothermal Lab

According to Blackwell,

two percent of the world’s supply of geothermal power is several thousand times the annual use of energy in the United States.

Geothermal could revolutionize energy, as we know it. Here are the facts:

1. Geothermal is renewable.
2. Geothermal is stable.
3. Geothermal is not subject to fossil fuel constraints or volatility.
4. Geothermal does not consume any valuable resources.
5. Geothermal does not produces any greenhouse gases.
6. Geothermal delivers power 24/7, independent of weather, surface water levels or heat waves.
7. Geothermal provides a long-term place of employment and a known and consistent power price to its buyers.
8. Geothermal power plants enjoy low visibility and uses comparatively little land. Skillful planning can create a plant that is almost invisible from a short distance.

According to David Blackwell with SMU Lab,

The power plants don’t emit any kind of waste products.

Moreover, he pointed out that the hot water that shoots through geothermal plants goes right back down into the ground to be used over and over in an endless geothermal loop. According to Blackwell, if all the nations of the earth worked full-bore to develop geothermal resources, geothermal could eventually meet the power needs of 75 to 90 percent of all the people on the planet.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Energy released a study that said with proper investing in geothermal technology, the United States could conjure enough energy from geothermal power plants to provide a tenth of the nation’s power demands by 2050. One ideal place to start, the report said, would be somewhere with hot rocks relatively shallow beneath the surface to help reduce expenses.

Oregon has just such a location: the Newberry Geothermal Project:

The Newberry Geothermal Project is located on the western flank of Newberry Volcano, several miles from the Newberry crater in an area that allows geothermal development.

However, radical environmental groups are opposing the development of the Newberry crater.

In fall of 2007 approval was given for tests to be done on a 5-acre site outside the boundaries of the Newberry National Volcanic Monument to asses the possibility of producing renewable clean power for possibly 100,000 households in Oregon. The Juniper Group appealed the decision to prevent the this environmentally friendly project from moving forward. The groups website says, “Months later, our appeal is still pending while we continue to assess legal options to rescind and/or modify the agency’s decision and halt ongoing exploration activities.”

The opposition that the Juniper Group is mounting to this geothermal project is a perfect example of what we oppose. Instead of leading the nation in renewable energy production, Oregon is bowing to the wishes of fringe environmental groups.

Have you ever sat by the ocean and wondered at the power of waves? They continually come—one after another—never stopping their onslaught. The energy it takes to propel these waves is to put it simply, incredible. Now, consider what this means for energy production. The World Energy Council has estimated that

approximately 2 terawatts (2 million megawatts), about double current world electricity production, could be produced from the oceans via wave power.

The navy has picked up on this and they are currently funding a wave farm in Hawaii. Dr. George W. Taylor, CEO of OPT (the company in charge of the project) stated,

Our engineering group has done a superb job of executing the design, build, test and deployment of this PowerBuoy system in Hawaii. We are pleased to be a part of the Navy’s effort to develop and commercialize new technologies to reduce the Navy’s dependence on fuel shipments for power generation facilities, and to meet its strategic goals and other sustainability initiatives.

How exactly does this technology work? According to CETO, the company in charge of the product,

Unlike other wave energy systems currently under development around the world, the CETO wave power converter is the first unit to be fully-submerged and to produce high pressure seawater from the power of waves.

By delivering high pressure seawater ashore, the technology allows either zero-emission electricity to be produced (similar to hydroelectricity) or zero-emission freshwater. It also means that there is no need for undersea grids or high voltage transmission nor costly marine qualified plants.

This is a prime example of what we at Lights On Oregon support. Because of the innovation in the area of wave-to-energy technology, the United States Navy is increasing its independence. Renewable and affordable energy is important for everyone. If we, as Oregonian’s can decrease our dependence on fossil fuels (and thus increase our energy independence), shouldn’t we do it?

According to The Daily News:

Opponents of the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal lined up to fight federal regulators’ approval of the project…

The state of Oregon, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and a coalition of environmental groups all asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reconsider its Sept. 18 decision to permit NorthernStar’s $650 million LNG terminal on the Lower Columbia River.

A coalition of LNG opponents, including Columbia Riverkeeper, the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Wahkiakum Friends of the River and the Cowlitz County-based Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community, also announced Monday that they had filed to overturn FERC’s decision.

This is another example of radical environmental groups opposing affordable energy. The proposed LNG terminal is both good for Oregon, and good for the nation. For an increase in Oregon’s supply of Liquefied Natural Gas, will drastically increase the supply of safe and clean natural gas, which will help hold down rising energy costs. As an added benefit, natural gas burns cleaner, with lower emissions than petroleum products.

We at Lights On Oregon care about the environment. We want to utilize clean energy. We believe the market should dictate this—not the government. We have made it our mission to document the absurdity of the actions of radical environmental group, who oppose these ideals. You can join us by signing our petition, or by sharing our site with a friend. We encourage you to do both.