Utilities could also fund programs to offset their emissions by planting trees to soak up the gases, for example

I keep wondering why there hasn't been a massive tree-planting effort undertaken in this country yet. I imagine us planting a million new trees a year, anywhere and everywhere possible. If this would be a good thing according to this program outlined above, it would be a good thing to start now, everywhere. So, I say, plant trees! one of these days I'll get around to starting onemilliontreesayear.com .org Friends of Trees/Portland Parks and Rec - anything you can do to speed up the process? Planting street trees at $75 a pop - it will take a long long time to get Portland's tree canopy filled in...

agreed, Jeff, this is great news.

While the intent might be good, this appears to be loaded with unintended consequences.

Obviously, the person that bears to brunt of all of these costs are the end consumer here in Oregon. Businesses do not pay taxes, they just pass them on in the form of price increases. For those of us earning six figure incomes, this is manageable. For the vast majority of the voting public that is not in this category, disposable income will take another big hit.

The big winners will be the utilities. Can you picture the big smile on their faces when someone like Scottish Power realizes they can just shut down an inefficient power plant and sell the un-used carbon output to a growing business that needs it, for a profit! The shut-down reduces the amount of power coming into the market and thus ends up raising the price further (you know, that old supply/demand thing), thus costing the average voter more money. The business that was considering an expansion will now more likely look to build the new capacity somewhere else.

As for the car companies, sure, they'll build more Prius type cars, and laugh all the way to the bank. But without a big Gov't subsidy, will anyone actually want one? The Geo Metro, produced by GM over a decade ago, got better mileage than the Prius and it now sits in the dust pile.

Why don't we just plant lots of trees? Isn't that better all the way around than forcing costs down to those that can least afford them:

1) Smokers (vis cig tax) 2) Drivers (those that must drive to work in order to feed their family)

Carbon taxes, cap & trade, etc., is very regressive.

As for the car companies, sure, they'll build more Prius type cars, and laugh all the way to the bank. But without a big Gov't subsidy, will anyone actually want one?

Why don't you ask Toyota? They are converting ALL of their cars to offer both standard and hybrid engines. Also look at their P&L as compared to GM, Ford, and Chrysler who are all losing money hand over fist.

Can you imagine what Saxton's plan would be had he been elected governor? "Do nothing" and/or "let the Feds handle it" after another round of tax breaks to the poor, mistreated gas companies.

Scott said: "Why don't we just plant lots of trees? Isn't that better all the way around than forcing costs down to those that can least afford them:"

Scott, you may benefit from not necessarily looking at tax policy soley through isolated components. Some elements of tax policy can be specific so as to discourage certain behaviors (e.g. incentives to plant trees, discourage smoking, discourage consumption of fossil fuels). Other elements of tax policy can be redistributive. E.G. social security, earned income tax payments, etc.

You could judge the tax system as a whole to see how fair or progressive it is.

"I keep wondering why there hasn't been a massive tree-planting effort undertaken in this country yet."

trees are great, tree planting is awesome, we should definitely embark on a massive tree planting effort. however, tree planing as effective carbon offset? outside of the tropics, and urban areas? probably not so effective.

without getting to deep into the details, the basic issue is "albedo". heat reflectivity. dark green trees absorb a lot of heat, likely enough to neutralize their other positive effects (absorbing carbon, increasing cloudiness, etc). so planting new trees over grasslands and such will have a negligible effect.

of course, here in the northwest, one promising effect of this regional partnership regarding trees that has me pretty excited is that they may have more value--especially the older ones--left standing then chopped down for timber. there may also be more incentive to reforest clear cuts. it's is not so much that the logging industry would be negatively effected, it's just that landowners would have the option to sell their carbon credits for money, providing them revenue sources other than lumber, and development. this is a very good thing! of course, trees left standing have much more economic value than just their carbon offset (just ask the salmon, or last novembers flood victims), but this is a great start.

ps - way to go kulo!

So is Gov Ted going to set an example by replacing his personal transportation with an itty bitty mini-car and dump the big state provided Lincoln he travels in from the Governor’s Residence to the State Capital Building and around the state? Is he going to dump the full sized SUV that often accompanies the Lincoln? Is he also going to set an example by moving into smaller more energy efficient digs closer to and within walking distance of his office? Or is Gov Ted just providing lip service to the rest of the state and not walking his own talk?

Spicey said: "So, I say, plant trees! one of these days I'll get around to starting onemilliontreesayear.com .org Friends of Trees/Portland Parks and Rec - anything you can do to speed up the process? Planting street trees at $75 a pop - it will take a long long time to get Portland's tree canopy filled in..."

Actually, Portland (the five-county region, that is) undertook a massive tree-planting program in the 1990s, partially funded by PGE (as I recall) as mitigation for the new natural gas power plant that their built in Boardman at that time. The effort resulted in 150,000+ new trees in Portland over the course of the effort. It included sophisticated GIS analyses to determine which streets already had good tree coverage, and which needed more, to target the planting efforts.

More info on the effort, which was called Seed The Future, at the press release following the conclusion of the program in 2001:

http://www.friendsoftrees.org/about/press_detail.php?id=4

A similar effort would be a good thing to offer to corporations as another option for purchase under the cap-and-trade system, IMHO.

The train is well underway to help Oregon join the rest of the world in confronting global warming. The Governor kicked it off in 2004 in a big way with his own intitative - now it has been joined in a regional signed MOU yesterday - Oregon hass committed to join WA,CA,NM,and AZ in a five state regional carbon market with real greenhouse reduction objectives for each state to be back to at 1990 emission levels by 2020 - these 5 states together are the 6th largest emitting "nation" on the planet.

The Governor and others have a slew of important global warming bills moving through the Legislature. The action is NOW in Salem to put Oregon on the path to achieving global warming solutions:

SB 373 Renewable Energy Standard SB 87 Improve the Energy Trust funding process HB 2621 One percent solar in govt bldg projects SB 375 Energy efficiency standards for 7 appliances HB 2211-2212 Expannd energy tax credits SB 576 Energy efficiency/green bldg standards for gov't bldgs

These bills are all moving through the Legislature right now. Get involved.

Good for Gov K, makes me glad I voted for him (twice). We certainly can't wait for the feds to get off their duffs. British Columbia is also setting some ambitious GHG emission reduction goals. It's good to see progress on this issue, however modest and late coming.

That said, I would like to see more specifics. Biofuels and tree-planting are stop gap measures at best. What we need to do, all of us, is power down as much as possible. It's up to all of us to effect change in this area--can't leave it up to the government.

And Jeff Alworth mentioned something about GW being a "progressive" issue. I would really encourage people not to frame this as a partisan issue. This is something that absolutely needs to be non-partisan. There will be no real progress on this issue if both sides of the aisle don't agree on the broad outlines. To frame it as a "progressive" issue is to lump it in with all the other "progressive" issues (abortion, gun control, etc.), which will only delay action on this, the most pressing issue of our generation, even further.