Document text
By John Darling for the Tidings March 05. 2015 12:01AM Legislature might be divided on clean fuels bill, but these Ashlanders weren't Daily Tidings / file photo Members of the Oregon House on Wednesday vigorously debated Senate Bill 324 — known as the clean fuels bill — before approving it and sending it on to Gov. Kate Brown. The measure aims to cut Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions by requiring fuel producers to ramp down the amount of carbon in car and truck fuels over the next decade. The bill, which was previously passed by the Senate, would implement the low-carbon standard in Oregon’s “clean fuels” program. It's a priority for Democrats, with supporters arguing the program would combat climate change and provide financial help for producers in Oregon and elsewhere of alternative, cleaner fuels — including ethanol, biodiesels, natural gas, propane or even electricity. Republicans, joined by oil and trucking companies and many Oregon businesses, strongly resisted. They argued it is unclear how the program would work and how much it would cost them and, ultimately, consumers by driving up gas prices. While the Legislature may be divided on the issue, that was not the case on Ashland's streets, where the folks we approached on the issue were unanimous in their support. We asked them the following question: The Oregon Legislature is considering a measure that would continue the state's effort to reduce its carbon footprint by setting tougher clean vehicle fuel standards. Supporters say it's a necessary step to reduce our contribution to climate change, while critics say it will damage the state's economy by increasing the cost of fuel. What do you think? Violet Springford — Yes, I’m willing to spend extra for clean fuel. We already know how to make it, so I’m not sure about all the research needed. I definitely feel it’s worth spending an extra dollar a gallon on. It doesn’t matter if we’re the only state doing it. We’ve got to do it one step at a time and each person take responsibility for contributing to the planet’s health, then others will follow. Jason Hutchins — Yes, I think it’s not a big sacrifice to pay a little bit more per gallon, as a state, to reduce our carbon footprint. Maybe the expense could be subsidized by some of the new tax on legalized marijuana. That’s why I live in Ashland, because the awareness and caring about the environment. People are so into energy here. This town thinks about the environment more than anywhere I’ve ever been. Rachel Ferry — It’s a great idea. That should be the direction we’re moving. If funds are needed, it’s a logical place to take them for. In the long run, it would cost a lot more not to think about it, then reach a crisis point. All over this country we live high on the hog and drive our giant cars wherever we want. We can’t do that forever. Tyler Krul — Absolutely, do it right now. We were just in Europe, where gas is so much more expensive and they’re apt to seek out alternative transportation, like bikes. People need to start thinking how to do that. With cleaner fuels, you pay today and save tomorrow. People are just so into what they need in the moment, here in the U.S. People are upset about the rising cost of gas but not thinking about what we’ll have to pay down the road. Ruth Resch — It’s terrific, let’s do it. Any raise in gas price will only be temporary. We have to go for the clean energy that’s not going to further mess up the environment. There are jobs that will be created with clean fuels. The scare now about the increasing costs of gas is temporary at best. I’m OK with paying more, but we have to do this thing now. What do you think? Have an opinion on this topic? Send a letter to the editor at www.dailytidings.com/sendletter or email [email protected].  http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20150305/NEWS/150309925 © 2015 Copyright © 1995-2011 Crain Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement -->