[Vision2020] Moscow City Council's Megaload Discussion

[Ted Moffett]

On 5/29/11, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> wrote:

> However, from a local discussion standpoint, it seems to me there are
> legitimate concerns from local citizens that don't necessarily take into
> account - or take a position on - the Bigger Picture.  In trying to reach
> our local representatives, some of whom have clearly stated disinterest in
> looking further, I want to encourage folks to continue to hit the local
> perspective - and hit it hard.
>
> Do you think that puts us at odds?
>
> I hope not!

Yesterday I posted comments on Vision2020, which you can read in full
at this website
( http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-May/076724.html )
that I think already addressed your point above, that are partially
pasted in below.

Moscow Councilperson Carscallen on Vision2020 already expressed a
skeptical view of anthropogenic climate change, in an exchange I had
with him on this issue long before the mega-load issue arose, so I
would guess, unless he has changed his mind, he has no major concerns
regarding the climate change implications of the tar sands bound
mega-loads.  I think this skeptical view of climate change is not
based on a objective survey of all the scientific evidence regarding
the profound implications of human impacts on Earth's climate, but I
also think he is to be applauded for answering my concerns on this
issue on Vision2020, which it is rather obvious many in local
government avoid.

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-May/076724.html

>From Vision2020 post at website above:

Note that Moscow Mayor Cheney's letter referenced here makes no
mention of the ultimate goals of the mega-loads, to expand tar sands
development, nor the consequences of this for anthropogenic climate
change.  I think this is a grevious omission, that might have been
rather deliberate, to avoid the politics involved in a city mayor
introducing the global climate issue regarding what many would insist
is exclusively a local municipal matter.

And there is a factual basis for concern over introducing global
climate change into local politics, given Moscow Councilperson
Carscallen's public comments referenced earlier in this thread, that
appear to be an attempt to de-legitimize concerns exclusively focused
on the mega-loads impacts to highways, streets and the public in
general, implying the real agenda of some is an alternative energy
bias against oil, so if the mega-loads were wind turbines or solar
panels, objections would lessen.

Indeed, if playing the game of local politics for election, given the
sizable local voting block that is not as environmentally oriented as
the image of Moscow might suggest, avoiding taking an aggressive
stance against the tar sands bound mega-loads, because of the impacts
on climate change, is probably savvy strategy.
--------------------
Saundra Lund v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
Sun May 29 00:43:59 PDT 2011
wrote:

> "From my perspective, the bigger issue is very complex with somewhat valid
> arguments from more than two perspectives."

Do you mean you doubt the following emphatic statements from NASA
climate scientist James Hansen, in his acceptance speech for Sophie
Prize in June 2010, that specifically address Canadian tar sands
developments impacts on climate change, given Norway's Statoil
Canadian tar sands investments?  The physics of the Earth's climate
system is indifferent to the economics, politics, ideology etc. of
human affairs, of debates about local versus state versus national or
international issues.  We as a species either respect this objective
physics, or we will pay a dear price.  If unconventional oil reserves
(tar sands, heavy oil, shale) are developed on a massive scale, the
global climate change implicatons are daunting, given these
unconventional reserves are gigantic:
http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/3unconventional.html
--------------
NASA climate scientist James Hansen's acceptance speech for the Sophie
Prize June 2010:

http://www.sofieprisen.no/Articles/514.html

Our planet today is close to climate tipping points. Ice is melting in
the Arctic, on Greenland and Antarctica, and on mountain glaciers
worldwide. Many species are stressed by environmental destruction and
climate change. Continuing fossil fuel emissions, if unabated, will
cause sea level rise and species extinction accelerating out of
humanity's control. Increasing atmospheric water vapor is already
magnifying climate extremes, increasing overall precipitation, causing
greater floods and stronger storms.

Stabilizing climate requires restoring our planet's energy balance.
The physics is straightforward. The effect of increasing carbon
dioxide on Earth's energy imbalance is confirmed by précis
measurements of ocean heat gain. The principal implication is defined
by the geophysics, by the size of fossil fuel reservoirs. Simply put,
there is a limit on how much carbon dioxide we can pour into the
atmosphere. We cannot burn all fossil fuels. Specifically, we must (1)
phase out coal use rapidly, (2) leave tar sands in the ground, and (3)
not go after the last drops of oil.

And in the same speech:

"But our governments have no intention of solving the fossil fuel and
climate problem, as is easy to prove: the United States, Canadian and
Norwegian governments are going right ahead developing the tar sands,
which, if it is not halted, will make it impossible to stabilize
climate. Our governments knowingly abdicate responsibility for young
people and future generations."
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

> From: Ted Moffett [mailto:starbliss at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:04 PM
> To: Saundra Lund
> Cc: Sue Hovey; Moscow Vision 2020
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Moscow City Council's Megaload Discussion
>
>
>
> Rising Tide Portland- Hood River, OR
>
> http://www.extractionaction.net/2011/04/rising-tide-portland-hood-river-or/
>
>
>
> "They're making a killing. Profit > People+Planet?" Quote from badge or
> poster at this website:
>
> http://www.extractionaction.net/2011/03/add-the-day-of-action-to-your-site/
>
>
>
> From first website above:
>
>
>
> To commemorate the one year anniversary of the gulf oil disaster, 100 people
> gathered today on the banks of the Columbia River where the infamous Tar
> Sands shipments will be transported by barge to the port of Lewiston, ID.
>
> -----------------------
>
> A few moments of searching revealed this action April 20, 2011 (anniversary
> of the gulf oil disaster), in Hood River, Ore. against the tar sands bound
> equipment that may pass through Moscow.  As is obvious from the pictures, a
> major focus of this action involved anthropogenic climate change ("Climate
> Justice" in banner), which is a separate issue from whether or not the
> mega-loads local or state impacts are acceptable or legal; and is an issue
> that I find exceedingly strange is not a major focus of local discussion, as
> far as I have determined, regarding why the mega-loads should be opposed
>
>
>
> Note this action brought members of first nation indigenous communities from
> the tar sands and surrounding areas and Northwest climate justice activists.
> Anyone attempting to organize effective civil disobedience in Moscow
> opposing the mega-loads should consider gaining the involvement of committed
> and experienced activists from outside our area who oppose the tar sands
> development.
>
>
>
> No, that would not be me!
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting critical comments.  Thanks.
>
>
>
> As you may know, given local newspapers had pictures of the "protests,"
> there were several public actions recently (though I don't think these
> events qualified as "civil disobedience" given my understanding that this
> involves breaking a law) opposing the mega-loads with those involved
> carrying supposedly mega-load sized signs, and so forth.  Why those involved
> in these actions did not post about these events to Vision2020, I wonder.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
> wrote: . .
>
>
> Hey -- if anyone reading this knows of any civil disobedience plans for
> if/when the mega-loads come through Moscow, ***please*** let me know.  For
> obvious reasons (including the Council not giving a rip about full input
> from Moscow citizens), I'm not interested in attending public meetings or
> writing letters.  However, Steed's stunt -- along with the other lemming
> Council members' disinterest in the input of their constituents -- has
> annoyed me enough that I'm willing to participate in civil disobedience if
> needed, and I've got some friends who would also probably like to
> participate   :-)  For a variety of reasons (including the fact that even I
> get tired of tilting at windmills, and since our governor & his henchmen had
> sold us out *long* before we'd heard a word about the mega-loads defiling
> Idaho qualifies as tilting at windmills), I'd made a conscious decision not
> to get too involved in the issue.  However, given our Council's blatant
> disregard for and disrespect of citizen input on this highly controversial
> issue, I'm ticked enough that I'm willing to express with action my absolute
> disgust at the Resolution.
>
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> ~ Edmund Burke
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of Sue Hovey
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:43 PM
> To: MoscowCares at moscow.com; Moscow Vision 2020
>
> Cc: Jane Kauzlarich; Borg Hendrickson; Friends of the Clearwater; Fritz
> Knorr; Jeanne McHale; Marilyn Beckett; Joann Muneta
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Moscow City Council's Megaload Discussion
>
>
> Somewhere I had a thread in this discussion where I stated Randy Fife had
> teamed up with Walter Steed to blindside the mayor.  Walter sent me an email
> to tell me Randy had nothing to do with it.  Yesterday I saw Nancy at
> Farmers' Market and she agreed.  So the video should not be interpreted with
> an inference that Fife was helping Walter create council chaos.  He did it
> all by himself, with council members who were willing to support him.
>
> Sue
>
>
>
>