Carbon emissions are wounding Oregon

We don’t think we need to explain to anyone who has been here awhile why Portland is what’s up. There is a certain pride (although some would say arrogance) that comes with being a Portlandian, or even an Oregonian, for that matter.

Which makes it a lot easier to slack off on some of the things that make this such a great place. For instance, taking care of our environment.

In 2007, the state government formed the Oregon Global Warming Commission. The commission has no legislative authority, but simply sets goals every two years for the state to ensure that Oregon is on track for a sustainable future.

The commission’s carbon emission reduction goals for 2020 and 2050 are for 51 million, and 14 million tons released in the atmosphere, maximum, respectively. Up until now, we had been doing all right, reducing our total carbon emissions by 16 percent since 1999.

But the commission’s latest report clearly said we haven’t been doing enough to meet the 2020 goal, and suggested Oregon implement a carbon emission tax, similar to the one already in place in British Columbia. That province in Canada has seen a 16 percent per-person decline in fossil fuel use since the law was implemented in 2008.

The would-be Oregon tax, which was proposed in the 2015 Oregon Legislature in the form of House Bill 3470, would focus mainly on coal power and smaller motor vehicles. Now is an opportune time for another push in Salem and in Portland to get this done, since Portland Mayor Charlie Hales seems to have sunk his teeth into climate change in the last few months. He recently condemned a potential propane export facility to be constructed here, explaining a desire to decrease dependence on fossil fuels.

HB 3470 essentially called for the Global Warming Commission’s suggestions to be made into rule. It was quickly approved by the House Committee on Energy and Environment, but stalled in the House Rules Committee, after Republican legislators dug in their heels on behalf of business and industry leaders who complain the tax would damage Oregon employers and consumers alike.

Naysayers of the carbon tax say energy companies will just pass on the increase cost to consumers via higher retail prices. Granted, that would most likely happen, but wouldn’t that lead to a dip in carbon emissions, nonetheless?

It’s true, a new tax directly affects the general populace, i.e., anyone who owns a car or uses Pacific Power, Northwest Natural Gas, or PGE for electricity and heating, since a good chunk of our power comes through power lines from coal mines in Montana and Utah. Cutting down on fossil fuel use doesn’t strictly mean higher taxes, however. The commission also suggested implementing more use of electric vehicles and charging stations; ideally, 20 percent of Portland’s transit by 2020 would be powered by electricity, if the commission had it its way.

As broke college students, we would like to be the first to say, “Screw taxes.” But, as people who could live through 2050 to watch our environment deteriorate, we understand two things:

One, we would clearly be overpaying; we’re not being taxed simply for our own carbon emissions, but for all the preceding years it took to get to such a ridiculous CO level. The earlier a measure like this is implemented, the easier the transition is.

Two: we should be gladly doing this. While the commission’s findings are technically still just a “suggestion” to our government, how much of a hint can something be when the alternative is the planet eventually dying?

Ultimately, the decision to stop global warming comes down to the individual. Any one person can say, “Well, how much does my commute actually hurt the environment? It’s got to be negligible, right?” And technically, they’re right.

The problem is, for the longest time we have abided this logic and we’ve seen how it works. If we say, “It’s not me, it’s the system,” then no one is accountable, and we’re all guilty.