Every now and then I hear someone accused of "having an agenda." This is odd, as I usually think of agendas as way to keep on task during meetings. Okay, I understand that the accusation is really sloppy English for "hidden agenda," which is certainly a difficult charge to defend, at the same time being impossible to prove, being hidden and all...
I suspect that those who suggest that others have hidden agendas are suspicious or afraid that there is some sort of deeper conspiracy at play, such as: "The environmentalists say that they want marine reserves around the rocks where we don't fish, but their real agenda is to take away our clam guns."
This business about agendas is both paranoia and bad grammar. The same abusers of language also believe that there are armies of high paid progressive peace-pushing tree-hugging coral-loving lobbyists.
I'll let you in on a secret. If you're against conservation, don't worry about agendas or lobbyists. Your worry would be much better directed at the committed volunteers and citizen advocates that organize around issues that raise their passion. Give these firebrands a bit of training in campaign tactics and strategic planning and they are formidable.
The tools of conservation go far deeper than "having an agenda." When citizens believe their cause from the heart and intelligently organize, you just might be better off stepping aside.
Observe as an example the anti-LNG movement. Observe and recall the stages of development of an effective grassroots campaign that grew into a powerful political force that is a major driver in our local cultural shift. This movement will succeed, not because of agendas but because righteous indignation was focused and directed. The development and outcomes of this movement may end up in a textbook.
Hmm, perhaps the fear of hidden agendas stems from the personal experience of those anti-conservation individuals. They themselves probably plot in secret about how they are going to scorch and burn the earth and destroy the environmentalists that stand in the way. Yes, that's how it is. Ah, the sweet adrenalin of paranoia mingles with the urge to fight or flee. And now I begin to understand...
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Governor Kulongoski turns the corner on LNG
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=120304366694843300
Governor Kulongoski has appropriately asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to stop processing all LNG and associated pipeline applications in Oregon. It sure took some time and effort to get to this point. I am very proud of the citizen activists that have persisted in educating our political leaders. Please keep it up for awhile longer. And don't be surprised or discouraged if the FERC approves Bradwood in the next month or two. In the end, as Riverkeeper Brent Foster said, "Every one of these projects will be stopped." There's a new sheriff in town, and this tough cop wears the face of all who care about the environmental, economic and cultural future of Oregon. Display your badge with pride!
Governor Kulongoski has appropriately asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to stop processing all LNG and associated pipeline applications in Oregon. It sure took some time and effort to get to this point. I am very proud of the citizen activists that have persisted in educating our political leaders. Please keep it up for awhile longer. And don't be surprised or discouraged if the FERC approves Bradwood in the next month or two. In the end, as Riverkeeper Brent Foster said, "Every one of these projects will be stopped." There's a new sheriff in town, and this tough cop wears the face of all who care about the environmental, economic and cultural future of Oregon. Display your badge with pride!
Saturday, February 9, 2008
NMFS to Corps: Never mind
If you haven't heard, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) no longer is asking the US Army Corps of Engineers to send Northern Star's dredging application back, along with an initial denial based on incomplete information and and numerous substantive concerns for the salmon of the Columbia River drainage.
NMFS has both its scientific and political side. In Seattle NMFS has separate facilities for the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Northwest Regional Headquarters. But Bob Lohn is the appointed overall boss. Mr. Lohn explained the dramatic reversal of the fisheries service position:
"Our recommendation that the permit pending before you be denied was a procedural step and should not, in any way, be understood as a final determination by this agency regarding the possible effects of the project or what our view might be after additional, updated information is added to the application."
That is beautiful. Huh?
NMFS will still, I believe, be required to provide a Biological Opinion on whether the Bradwood project would jeopardize the continued existence of salmon runs that are listed as threatened or endangered. The scientists have already scoped the adverse impacts that should demand a ruling of jeopardy, and a stop to the project.
If in the end NMFS ignores its own scientists, that attitude would not go un-noticed if a citizen suit become necessary. The earlier NMFS document should be useful for state agencies reviewing water quality issues. Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) must consider whether "beneficial uses" of the Columbia River are protected from harm if this project were built and operated. Propagation of salmon and steelhead on State or Federal endangered species lists is arguably the most sensitive of beneficial uses.
The harm to salmon is so obvious that we shouldn't even be having to rely on DEQ, Washington's Department of Ecology, or NMFS to protect salmon. The Clatsop County Commission had an important opportunity to protect salmon by refusing to agree to land use changes unless Northern Star could prove that no harm would befall the fish.. But, hey, I was foolish to believe that any of the four (Commissioner Sam Patrick bucked the trend) who passed on putting the brakes on Bradwood, were taking stewardship of salmon.
Those four commissioners have evidenced by their votes disregard for survival of the salmon, the fish upon which much of our community history is built. With the same vote they failed to protect the health, safety and security of their constituents. To top it off the vote leaves the fiscal future of the County with uncertainty and risk.
I'm actually angry enough about this land use decision to allow the Bradwood LNG important terminal siting decision to move further into federal hands, that I think this is grounds for a recall. It's a harsh step that sure must not feel good to the person being recalled. I think that incompetence and a bonehead vote should be enough to throw the bums out, especially a generational blunder like this one. This area could suffer a long time unless this project is stopped in another jurisdiction.
Richard Lee was a good choice as the focus of a district commissioner recall, as he comes with baggage and problems far beyond LNG. (Sorry, Richard, it's not personal and I certainly have no vendetta. You know that I've always been respectful and cordial to you. But this is politics. To me it's the politics that defines the future of our area - my future, your future and the quality of life for us and our families. I'm willing to gamble that the fundamental values of District Three have shifted have shifted to demand more professional, transparent and representative government. Recent events and revelations compel citizen action by recall. It would be both dangerous and irresponsible of an informed electorate not to seek your recall. As a District Three voter I would prefer that you resign and get on with your life. But if you decide to fight the recall and you lose, please don't take it too hard. It's not like you were imprisoned for illegal campaign finance practices or some disgraceful misuse of office. Besides, I'm sure that you can contribute to society as a private citizen, as a businessman. Take the easy way out, leave the Commission, and may peace be with you.)
NMFS has both its scientific and political side. In Seattle NMFS has separate facilities for the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Northwest Regional Headquarters. But Bob Lohn is the appointed overall boss. Mr. Lohn explained the dramatic reversal of the fisheries service position:
"Our recommendation that the permit pending before you be denied was a procedural step and should not, in any way, be understood as a final determination by this agency regarding the possible effects of the project or what our view might be after additional, updated information is added to the application."
That is beautiful. Huh?
NMFS will still, I believe, be required to provide a Biological Opinion on whether the Bradwood project would jeopardize the continued existence of salmon runs that are listed as threatened or endangered. The scientists have already scoped the adverse impacts that should demand a ruling of jeopardy, and a stop to the project.
If in the end NMFS ignores its own scientists, that attitude would not go un-noticed if a citizen suit become necessary. The earlier NMFS document should be useful for state agencies reviewing water quality issues. Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) must consider whether "beneficial uses" of the Columbia River are protected from harm if this project were built and operated. Propagation of salmon and steelhead on State or Federal endangered species lists is arguably the most sensitive of beneficial uses.
The harm to salmon is so obvious that we shouldn't even be having to rely on DEQ, Washington's Department of Ecology, or NMFS to protect salmon. The Clatsop County Commission had an important opportunity to protect salmon by refusing to agree to land use changes unless Northern Star could prove that no harm would befall the fish.. But, hey, I was foolish to believe that any of the four (Commissioner Sam Patrick bucked the trend) who passed on putting the brakes on Bradwood, were taking stewardship of salmon.
Those four commissioners have evidenced by their votes disregard for survival of the salmon, the fish upon which much of our community history is built. With the same vote they failed to protect the health, safety and security of their constituents. To top it off the vote leaves the fiscal future of the County with uncertainty and risk.
I'm actually angry enough about this land use decision to allow the Bradwood LNG important terminal siting decision to move further into federal hands, that I think this is grounds for a recall. It's a harsh step that sure must not feel good to the person being recalled. I think that incompetence and a bonehead vote should be enough to throw the bums out, especially a generational blunder like this one. This area could suffer a long time unless this project is stopped in another jurisdiction.
Richard Lee was a good choice as the focus of a district commissioner recall, as he comes with baggage and problems far beyond LNG. (Sorry, Richard, it's not personal and I certainly have no vendetta. You know that I've always been respectful and cordial to you. But this is politics. To me it's the politics that defines the future of our area - my future, your future and the quality of life for us and our families. I'm willing to gamble that the fundamental values of District Three have shifted have shifted to demand more professional, transparent and representative government. Recent events and revelations compel citizen action by recall. It would be both dangerous and irresponsible of an informed electorate not to seek your recall. As a District Three voter I would prefer that you resign and get on with your life. But if you decide to fight the recall and you lose, please don't take it too hard. It's not like you were imprisoned for illegal campaign finance practices or some disgraceful misuse of office. Besides, I'm sure that you can contribute to society as a private citizen, as a businessman. Take the easy way out, leave the Commission, and may peace be with you.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
