|
MARCH 10, 2017
TRANSPORTATION?
In theory one
of the most important items for this Legislative Session is the transportation
package, which was something the legislature failed to accomplish two years
ago. Unfortunately, we may end up with the same roadblocks that prevented
us from passing it in 2015. As a reminder, this is what happened two
years ago. The Governor put together a workgroup to come up with a
plan. The workgroup consisted of eight legislators, two Republicans and
two Democrats from both the House and Senate. The Governor’s staff
chaired the workgroup and all relevant agencies were involved. This became
known as the “gang of eight.” I was one of the Senate republicans on the
workgroup. It was generally agreed at the beginning that the primary
focus should be maintaining the condition of our current system, with the
understanding that allowing roads and bridges to degrade past a certain point
would make bringing them back up to standards much more expensive. The
point of contention was the low carbon fuel standards, which will take fuel tax
dollars away from the highway system for “other purposes.” Our plan would
have put such a move on hold, to make sure the money went to infrastructure
needs. Simply put, our plan was killed at the eleventh hour by those
wanting gas tax dollars to go to environmental groups.
For the 2017
Session the Senate President and Speaker of the House decided to create a joint
committee to come up with a plan. What was interesting was the fact that
on the front end only one of the four Republicans who were part of the gang of eight
are on the current committee, while three of the four Democrats are.
Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I have nothing negative
to say about any of the members who are on the committee. I do find it
interesting, however that several of the members have no long term experience
in transportation issues and I also find it interesting that all of the Senate
members are from Portland or the upper Willamette valley. Having said
that, the issue that still has any proposal high centered is still the low
carbon fuel standard. It appears that the environmental groups will
probably refer to the ballot any proposal that does not redirect gas tax
dollars, which is currently a fund restricted specifically to infrastructure,
to other environmental efforts. I could talk about who these
organizations make campaign contributions to, but I will let that go for now.
The real issue should be ensuring gas tax revenues go to our roads and our bridges
rather than out of state corporations.
I have
received a lot of emails referencing “clean diesel” and other environmental
concerns relative to pollution caused by internal combustion engines.
There is a lot if misinformation available on the internet and also being
distributed by organizations who make money on these issues. Maybe
it would be helpful to know some facts. First, there are only two states
in the United States with cleaner air sheds than Oregon, and they are Alaska
and Hawaii. Second, the amount of carbon reduction created by
adding ethanol to fuel does not take into account the amount of carbon created
in producing the corn or soybeans we are currently using. I would also
ask how much sense it makes to take up massive amounts of farm land to produce
crops to be put into fuel (with a marginal return) when we could be using those
crops to deal with the worldwide hunger problem. Also, for those who
really care about the environment, they are currently destroying the Amazon rain
forest to grow sugar cane for ethanol. I personally think the Amazon rain
forest is the most important ecosystem on the planet and should be protected.
My real
frustration is the fact that, especially in the area of the environment, real
science has given way to political science. Admittedly, our history is
not stellar in this area. I can remember when you could see the smoke
from the pulp mill in Albany from 50 miles away and the Willamette River was
not safe for swimming. But that was decades ago and our protection of the
environment, based on real science has come a long way and we should be able to
take credit for the work we have done. For those who say we can do
better, you need to know that we are every time real science comes up with
improvements. My point here is our improvements should be driven by
science, not a political agenda. The low carbon standard is,
unfortunately, a politically-driven agenda driven by those who would profit
from it. I know this statement will not sit well with some, but it is the
reality of this particular agenda. As in most things in the world of politics,
one should follow the money.
Sincerely,
Senator Jeff
Kruse
email: Sen.JeffKruse@oregonlegislature.gov I phone: 503-986-1701
address: 900 Court St NE, S-205, Salem, OR, 97301
website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/kruse
| 
