<font 20px/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>Exporters are heavier users than budget allows</font>

<font 18px/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>The Paris agreement targets a 2 degree C rise in temperatures over the beginning of the industrial revolution because that is believed to be something of a safe limit. Actually, as we progress, it's safety gets questioned. 1.5degrees may be a saver target in many ways.</font>

<font 18px/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>These targets put limits on how long we can continue to burn fossil fuels at present “business as usual” rates. Indeed, the answer is “no longer”, because the process of decreasing usage is hard. The pattern of usage in the Paris 2 degree Celcius limit includes that we have almost completely quit using fossil fuels by about 2040. If we considered that target 20 years away, then we would need to reduce our usage by 5% per year over 20 years to reach bottom. Generally speaking, no state or country had achieved a reduction rate of significantly more than 1% per year. That seems to me to confirm that ending usage by 2040 is a challenge.</font>

<font 18px/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>Consider an export project who's carbon footprint represents 50% of Oregon's current usage. Plan a build cycle of 10 years before getting any benefits out of the project. Then recognize that it would need to be operated for 50 years at near full capacity to make the investment profitable. 50 years of usage at 50% of Oregon's footprint is equivalent to 25 years at 100% of Oregon's footprint. So, to make this project fit into Oregon's budget, we would need to say; “Okay, we'll turn off all local use of fossil fuels, NOW. Then, because the new project is at half power, and (assuming) it shuts off abruptly at the end of 25 years, Oregon will have done almost as well as Oregon's original budgeted – but half strength for over 2 x as long a time as it would have originally been budgeted.</font>

<font 18px/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>So a single project, as actually proposed (Jordan Cove LNG Export terminal) would not fit in Oregon's budget without depriving Oregon of any further budget for fossil fuel.</font>

<font 18px/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>This kind of logic needs to be considered for big projects! But it isn't. I don't know what kind of wishful thinking can support the belief that we can complete projects like that other than using climate denial to ignore the facts, because.</font>

1. <font 18px/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>If the usage must end in less than 30 years, there will not be enough time to recover investment.</font>
2. <font 18px/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>The slope on usage is supposed to be down, and new exports suggest increase in use, not decrease.</font>