Governor Kulongoski has released his climate change agenda (pdf) for the upcoming legislative session. Here’s the lead paragraph from the press release:

“As part of his 2009 legislative agenda, Governor Ted Kulongoski today announced a series of climate change legislation to be considered in the 2009 legislative session.  Joined by Peggy Fowler of Portland General Electric and Mark Edlen of Gerding Edlen Developers, the Governor presented his agenda at the Center for Health and Healing at Oregon Health and Science University , highlighting green buildings and electric cars as two fundamental components to the climate agenda.”

Note that representatives from the power industry and the development community were standing by his side. That should give you a pretty good idea of what’s up.

While the agenda does contain a few laudable proposals, it is not the emergency package to tackling global warming that we need. Unfortunately, it’s mostly greenwashing the continuation of business as usual.

Kulongoski is no apostate of the religion of growth:

“The effects of global warming have serious implications for Oregon’s economy and environment. At the same time, Oregon’s population will continue to grow, increasing demands for efficient transportation and reliable energy.”

An AP article highlights major elements of the proposal:

“[Kulongoski] wants to replace the $1,500 tax credit on hybrid vehicles with a $5,000 credit on all-electric cars and to fund energy efficiency for 800 low-income homes a year. . . his plan to cap and trade greenhouse gas emissions by utilities and industries in Oregon would go into effect in 2012 to allow time to make sure it is fair and workable.”

The agenda reiterates that the goal is to reduce emissions 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. Even if Kulongoski’s proposals were to work as planned, the goal itself is inadequate to avert climate catastrophe.

Kulongoski proposes a moratorium on new “conventional” coal-fired electricity generating capacity. This sweeps under the rug the fact that 41% of Oregon’s electricity already comes from coal. A realistic goal would be to stop burning coal, whether for generating electricity or for industrial uses.

Kulongoski’s proposal to subsidize automobile use by giving away tax credits for the purchase of plug-in and all-electric vehicles is another sop to industry and would encourage continuation of our unsustainable patterns of development.

Continued encouragement of low carbon fuels (i.e., biofuels) is another objectionable element. John Gear nicely summarizes the problems with biofuels:

“Right now, a company called “Snake River Ethanol” is planning to site an ethanol plant in Nyssa that will burn imported coal (carried in diesel-burning railcars) to turn imported corn into “home-grown” ethanol, to go along with the plant in Boardman burning natural gas to turn imported corn into “home-grown” ethanol.  That’s the reality of ethanol.

“As for biodiesel, the component that is truly from recycled waste oil is superior to petrodiesel from a greenhouse gas perspective.

“It’s about a pound a year per Oregonian.

“Meanwhile, canola’s (rapeseed’s) impact is much more negative than claimed. See http://is.gd/51DA

“Key excerpt:

“‘In studies recently published in Science, it was found that all of these crops are displacing carbon sinks around the world. Depending on the crop and the type of ecosystem carbon sink sent into the atmosphere, it could take anywhere from decades to centuries to recoup the greenhouse gases released by the plowed under carbon sink. Soy, rapeseed, palm, corn, and cane all create more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, either via crop displacement effects or nitrous oxide release, or both. Even cane can take up to 45 years to recoup greenhouse-gas emissions if the crop displaces livestock into the Amazon (the biggest cause of deforestation, which is the second leading cause of greenhouse gases). Biofuels are land constrained.’”

As this piece at Gristmill explains, ethanol production is creating increased greenhouse gas emissions and fertilizer pollution in the United States. As we continue to produce ethanol here at an unprecedented rate, we are in fact hurting the very thing we are trying to solve. Worse, ethanol production to benefit rich countries is stealing land, water, and food from small farmers in poor countries around the world.

I should mention a few of the good points in Kulongoski’s agenda. A “green building” initiative sets a goal of net zero emissions buildings by 2030. But won’t reduce existing emissions - at best, it would reduce the increase in emissions. What’s really needed is a massive retrofit of existing buildings and programs  that result in smaller living spaces. As in transportation, we can’t build our way out of our emissions problems.

Feed-in tariffs for solar are a great idea. But we need a more ambitious proposal than pilot projects. We need an all-out, crash program that would replace our existing coal-fired electric generating capacity (which accounts for 41% of Oregon’s electricity) with renewable sources.

Expanding transportation options would be great. - but a program to revitalized and expand our rail system is notable by its absence. There’s no mention of land use patterns, which drive transportation needs. Rural transportation issues are completely and pointedly ignored. Kulongoski is hot for “new technologies”. Why are we still wasting precious resources on infrastructure to support new permutations of the automobile rather than figuring out how to minimize its use or even do without it?

A realistic climate change agenda would: 1) begin planning now for dealing with ever-diminishing supplies of oil (and a bit later, natural gas), and 2) phase out coal, the sooner the better.