Would-be fuel exporters offer annual payment that might fund transportation projects

Isn’t that called a “bribe” ??

Capitalism: Paying people off to get away with whatever they want.

This is a deal with the devil.

Portland sells it soul to tar sands and fracking in order for it’s residents to not pay for auto parking. If this gets approved, we will be an international leader in greenwashing.

***comment deleted by moderators***

So the City is cool with running an oil pipeline through an environmental preservation zone… thank god we draw the line at MTB trails or there would be a serious threat to our natural areas. *headdesk*

Gross! This article implies that money from the pipeline is in line to pay for bike infrastructure bur does anyone actually believe that could ever happen! Total BS! We need to pay for transportation infrastructure, the biggest challenge with our transportation infrastructure is an over-reliance on Single-Occupancy-Vehicles. Instead of looking for for some “magic money” to fall out of the sky, or a filthy pipe, or from Salem, lets generate some revenue in a way that actually improves our infrastructure:
Raise more money from parking (more meters, paid permits, increased taxes on surface parking lots), increase gas taxes, collect a weight and mileage fee at DEQ check-ups to encourage lighter vehicles less driving, increase fees on the largest freight vehicles and offer breaks on the smallest freight vehicles, require an (expensive) sticker to use studded tires with City limits, lower speed limits, increase enforcement efforts for speeding, running red lights, distracted/impaired driving, use red light/speed cameras to generate income, increase towing for parking violations, etc. Pitching this pipeline as a revenue stream is shameful.

I guess too bad the CRC was not built and the tolled bridge could have set up a benefit district for bike and led infrastructure in the impact zone, as some jurisdictions have done. Hmmm missed opportunity.

No thanks.

The gas will get exported somewhere, as long as there’s a demand. I’m fine with taking their money and putting it to positive use. NIMBYism isn’t going to solve the global warming problem.

A “pipeline through an environmental preservation zone” isn’t a good idea for any amount of money, even if the money would make a real difference (which it won’t.)

“Dad, why did you sell out our future?”

“Twelve high-end signalized crosswalks, kid. Per year!”

John Lascurettes
It’s also written by a Forbes columnist that routinely writes, almost exclusively, articles on how there is no man-made crisis.
PS: the reason why you couldn’t respond is that the reply is too many layers deep. It’s part of the commenting plugin BP.org uses.
Recommended 3

So what if he routinely writes in one direction? I have to conclude then that writes of their opinion. People derive conclusions from their obervations and then publish their conclusions. Hence, youre saying that since they writr in favor of one conclusion or another that they are automatically suspect, ie, their integrity ought to be questioned.

Do you think the same way od Michael Mann or James Hansen? Their publishing runs 100% toward agw. You must also question their integrity, too, right?

Or, is what youre really saying is that if an author writes something you disagree with, then that author’s integrity must be questioned?

I am guessing thats what you’re really saying.

Dave
And it’s a particularly hilarious example for two reasons:
One, it was specifically designed to test perceptions in a biased group, i.e. professionals within the oil & gas industry.
Two, even within what one would expect to be a group fairly hostile to climate science, the acknowledgement of anthropogenic climate change and support for regulation of carbon emissions was high – only 34% actually had a negative opinion. The majority agreed that AGW is real and will require real meaasures to solve.
So, he’s accusing climate scientists of cherry picking and misrepresenting data, and to prove his point he’s cherry picking and misrepresenting data showing that even petroleum engineers don’t believe this hogwash.
Recommended 4

Uh, why do you suspect that they were biased? You see, you start with an unfair presumption that they lack credibility and integrity simply based on your presumptions about employees of a certain industry. I do not share that unfair presumption.

Second, you’re misrepresenting the results. 36% agreed with agw. Thats the “majority” youre appealing to here. 36 is far less than 97, no? AGW consensus, what?

Further, the remaining 60% didn’t conclude that climate change was man made and a large number further concluded that man could do very little about it.

Hence, that 97% consensus = crumbled.

dave
I suspect the respondents were biased because that was an explicit goal of the study.
From the study authors:
“Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. …even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.”
The study itself found that 99.4% agreed that the climate is changing. 36% fell into what the authors called a “comply with Kyoto” frame. 5% fell into a “regulation activist” frame. 17% were fatalists, who spread the blame between humans and nature but felt taking action was pointless. 10% said it could be natural or human caused, but would be too economically disruptive to address either way. Only 24% took the “it’s entirely natural” tack.
Recommended 0

Wait… The respondents were biased because that was a goal of the study? How could a study make the respondents biased? Maybe you meant to say that the study was biased because of it’s methodology, but that doesnt hold because you were smearing the respondents despite not knowing anything about them individually and only because you disagree with their positions.

Further, that the climate is changing is self-evident. If there was anything less than 100% agreement with this then I’d be worried. But the point I was xhallenfing was the false assertion that scientific consensus is meaningful and that it was nearly universal re: agw. Note that agw is different than climate change.

Nonetheless, what is true is that despite the repeated falsehood of agw “consensus”, today, we see far less agreement with agw and we have witnessed a deceitful tranisition from agw to climate change.

It is one thing to present scientifically-derived facts and a wholly different thing to present policy prescriptions as scientific because you preface that preaxription with a scientific fact.