Month: January 2020

Posted on

Dispensing Favors; Wielding Power

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Tuesday, January 21, 2020 by devadmin

Big problems are on the horizon with the Democrat super majority’s Short Session Swindle, otherwise known as the Cap and Trade Bill (LC19). The most troubling is the unrelenting control and absolute authority that will be handed over to non-elected bureaucrats over the 30-year life-cycle of the program.

Bureaucracies are most irksome and troubling when agency and department heads pursue agendas that vary from the goals of those elected to office. Elected officers can be held accountable whereas bureaucrats are free to reign. Administrative agencies become another branch of government. They exercise vast amounts of power and authority. They write rules, compliance obligations, sanctions, penalties and the methods for adjudicating discrepancies.

These issues will explode with exponential fury when the statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) agenda is set for the next three decades by people who will be long-since gone. The alphabet soup of agencies chartered to control Oregon’s productive economy may outlive as many as 7 future governorships. These agencies will saddle businesses with untold complex, capricious and unachievable goals while dispensing favors and wielding power. The bill’s effectiveness will not be judged by the stated emission targets but by the underlying controls handed to the bureaucracies and the dizzying tax revenues.

Cap and Trade schemes are attractive to governments because of a contemptible contrivance that generates revenue through bureaucratically set goals, taxes and penalties. These arrangements become “pay to pollute” virtue signaling efforts. Oregon will make money regardless of GHG emissions compliance. In essence, companies are free to pollute as long as they pay the state’s ransom.

LC19 states, “it is the goal of this state to achieve a reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions levels in Oregon:

(a) To at least 45 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2035; and

(b) To at least 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050. … to prepare for the effects of [global warming] climate change.” [strike-out in original text]

Global cooling went out in the 80’s. The global warming ‘hockey-stick’ was a disgrace. Now climate change is the new toxically undefined term that is being used to scare our children. Additionally, what scientific evidence proves that an 80% emission level below 1990 levels is the right target for a date 30 years into the future? Why was 1990 chosen?

The date arises from AGENDA 21, a worldview which captured the minds of the statists in Oregon leading up to United Nations Conference on Environment & Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The AGENDA 21 preamble states, “Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving [its goals].”

Disguised under the global banner of foremost government responsibility, we can see the easily abused keywords: “plans”, “processes”, “strategies”, and “policies.” All of which combine to mean that you and I, as individuals, no longer count. It is the bureaucracies and their goals that matter.

If the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty or business, then LC19 is a perfect storm of statism. It does not represent a new approach to government. It is not consensus government. It is merely a continuation of political absolutism where those with power keep their power and the rest pay their dues. It is no different than the absolute governments, monarchies, or random tyrannies that have plagued most of human history.

Our Founders, the Declaration and our constitutionally federated Republic argue for the individual, with Jefferson noting, “the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride.”

But the super majority sees things differently–they believe it is not up to you to decide whether vaping, vaccines, plastic grocery bags, straws or firearms are appropriate tools for your life and happiness–the government should make that decision for you.

Am I being over-zealous and bombastic?

Here are some recorded statements of AGENDA 21 policy promoters:

  • “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the U.N. Earth Summit, 1992.
  • “Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single-family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment are not sustainable.” – U.N. Biodiversity Assessment Report.
  • “We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness millions of acres of settled land.” – Dave Foreman, Earth First.

Do you wonder why the four dams on the Klamath River have been slated for removal; why the Pelican Butte Ski Resort was never approved; why your farm and water rights are under constant attack; why your electric rates are climbing higher; or, why there are new bike-lanes instead of new auto-lanes?

The current mindset has been in the global-socialist kettle for more than 70 years and has been percolating within Oregon for the past three or four decades. Governor Goldschmidt (D) created the Oregon Task Force on Global Warming in late 1988. The task force was composed of 12 state agencies charged to review current scientific knowledge and assess how global warming could affect the state.

In 2004, an advisory group created by Governor Kulongoski (D), chose the global warming target date, 1990, based on recommendations from another United Nations organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The advisory group notes, “This target is based on limiting CO2 to double the level that existed prior to 1750.”

Doubling the colonial population would get us to a US population of 8 million. This is far below today’s population where 320M people produce nearly $20T in GDP and export food, goods and services to the world.

Despite the hype, there are no renewable technological solutions that can get Oregon’s economy to a carbon neutral, carbon free, or fossil free state. Without high net-energy fuel sources, which solar and wind sources are not, our capabilities will quickly regress toward the past, perhaps, circa 1750.

In their mad rush for money, Governor Brown (D) and the super majority appear unwilling to acknowledge the technological constraints facing top-down bureaucracies. A free-market approach, where men and women can exercise their entrepreneurial spirit and sequester innovative breakthroughs, is the best hope, along with carbon sequestration through good forest management. Good stewardship comes from private resources combined with clear and well-structured property rights. Mobs and crowds are not good stewards, individual are.

Therefore, Oregon should preserve capital accumulation for businesses and families so that our collective prosperity can lead to better stewardship for Oregon and our planet. Otherwise, you and I, our businesses, our jobs, our families and our communities will no longer be welcome in Oregon.

Stand with me and other steadfast Republicans in stopping this bill or be prepared for the “the re-wilding of our communities.”

 

If we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common sense…  No one will?

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Short Session Swindle

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, January 9, 2020 by devadmin

A recent Wall Street Journal book-review, When the Earth Had Two Moons, by Erik Asphaug, starts with,

“If you visited the surface of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, you wouldn’t recognize it. The newly formed planet was still cooling from its recent coagulation. There was a hot rocky surface (probably; we don’t know for sure), volcanoes (again, probably) and a steamy atmosphere (maybe). It seems unlikely that even the smallest thing resembling life was yet present, though, really, we don’t know. … We can be forgiven for not knowing what the surface of the Earth was like before this moment, as nothing survived that day intact.”

The reviewer’s thoughts are remarkable because, 1) there is a frank admission of uncertainty and 2) there is a profound recognition that our planet is always changing.

This WSJ book-review affirms my argument that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd and the tax and spend proposals we see cascading through various legislatures have put too much weight into stasis. The environmental balance that we witness today will not be the balance of tomorrow. The T. Rex and Mastodon are proof of that. It is one thing to recognize that the barred owl is a more successful survivor than the spotted owl but does this warrant shot-gunning the former to preserve the latter? This policy is not rational or scientific, it is a moral argument that demands an appropriate moral response.

Scientists have extensive knowledge of the Earth’s most recent 4,000-year period of glacial expansion and retreat. Historical references to the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period, are quite robust. Documentation particularly notes the improvement in mortality rates, farming, horticulture, livestock management, population growth and cultural achievements across most known cultures during the warmer periods of human history.

If this is fact, then why the political clamor? Why does the public at large expect the state, or federal government, to control or dictate the best type of energy that should be available? All our choices – nuclear, ethanol, diesel, low-octane rotaries, natural gas, fuel oil, solar, wind – all have drawbacks and benefits. Why not let the market decide?

Government mandates are blunt force instruments that shrewdly coerce compliance through costly fines, penalties and taxes without having the bandwidth to assess alternative technologies and innovative approaches that might solve our problems. Unlike the private sector, government is not an ingenious inventor. Economic data suggests that government is too costly, too inefficient and bureaucratic while being prone to corruption, misdirection and fraud.

The results seen on the street rarely match the political hype. Missed targets and cost overruns abound while with every election cycle the public gets promised newer, bigger, grander and longer-term, yet, more costly and unsustainable programs.

I would prefer an approach which more closely resembles the paradox witnessed throughout world history. A situation where free people enjoy the rewards of their hard work and where disseminated freedom leads to increased human well-being, societal growth and creative problem solving. Free people are creative people.

So, why the relentless drive to force Oregonians into a new proposal for a look-alike HB2020 Cap and Trade Carbon Management scheme? I am convinced it is nothing more than scare-mongering in order to tax Oregonians. It is nothing more than a cleverly worded grab and run, tax and spend, swindle.

The proposed legislation will grow the state, empower the political elites, raise taxes and redistribute the wealth of the most productive without even slightly impacting worldwide carbon emissions.

If you think I’m out on limb, look at this map with regard to existing, planned and currently under construction, coal-fired electrical production facilities and ask yourself, “Given the world’s population demographics, will taxing Oregon families and businesses impact the behavior of the heaviest carbon polluters?” Can Oregon’s population make up for emissions from expansive fires in California, Russia, or Australia, or, volcanic activity through-out the world?

Clearly, no.

The Democrat super majority should have asked this same question when they outlawed plastic straws and single-use plastic bags, “will it make a difference or is it just a costly hassle?”

People and their personal choices can make big differences. Personal responsibility and stewardship are the appropriate tools for each of us to use in our personal and public lives. I’m not making the claim that everything is peachy, and people aren’t wasteful or thoughtless when it comes to environmental concerns. Instead, I’m making the claim that government mandates never represent a balanced, efficient or rational choice due to the conflicting interests that guide public policy.

For example, I can remember when paper bags were outlawed to “save the trees.” The legislated solution was a floppy, thin, shapeless, “single-use” bag that never had any groceries in it by the time you got home because they were strewn about the car.

These constantly changing perspectives on right, wrong and which bag is the correct bag, shows that government policy can be irrational. Politicians make decisions based on limited knowledge with biased information. Paper bags were banned because legislators believed the environmentalist rhetoric about diminishing forests. Now there is a new emergency because people have been so diligent in following the law and not using paper.

Yet, the real solution would have been to allow free choice in the marketplace. Some folks would have used paper, others plastic, some would tend toward variations on recycled products while clever stewards would have developed the inexpensive reusable bag two decades sooner. Was it helpful to force people to use nothing but plastic only to berate them and force a nickel charge for buying the next version of the correct bag?

Yet, reality does not appear to inform the super majority. Free market solutions are lost to AGW fanaticism, as though state power is the only goal. Thus, we see the ‘politicizing’ all areas of our lives and society. Success hinges on being able to implement all-encompassing and ever-more complex social experiments where results become difficult to recognize and evaluate.

Additionally, the true societal costs are never properly accounted for as profound economic and community distortions, dislocations, and malinvestments pile onto the balance sheets of families and businesses.

The Climate Policy office holders will not be the people’s representatives as they will be appointed by the Governor and represent the statists’ interests, instead. They will have near universal control over Oregon businesses through rulemaking, unlimited taxing authority, penalty assessments, discretionary enforcement and other extensive economic burdens that will never make headlines. Oregonians know better, as we’ve seen unfettered giveaways and compliance incentives before, like the $1.2 billion Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) scandal.

The super majority continually reaches for near-tyrannical mandates that are wasteful and extremely expensive to Oregonians without ever accomplishing any measurable goals. Therefore, I will do everything in my power to stop any HB2020 look-alike  which will subvert our individual liberty and bankrupt businesses, whether small or large, in the metro area, or in the rural heartland of Oregon.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense, no one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28