User Tools

Site Tools


sierrapositiononcej

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
sierrapositiononcej [2019/01/26 20:11]
admin
sierrapositiononcej [2019/01/26 20:17] (current)
admin
Line 16: Line 16:
 These would be real gains for our communities and for our planet, and they are worth pursuing. The Oregon Sierra Club believes that we can and should prioritize solutions that benefit all Oregonians, not just a select few. We believe that the Clean Energy Jobs legislation has the potential to do just that and we hope to be working to ensure its passage in the 2019 session. However, as you continue to craft the bill, we do have some recommendations for pieces we believe need to be in it for it to be truly effective and equitable: These would be real gains for our communities and for our planet, and they are worth pursuing. The Oregon Sierra Club believes that we can and should prioritize solutions that benefit all Oregonians, not just a select few. We believe that the Clean Energy Jobs legislation has the potential to do just that and we hope to be working to ensure its passage in the 2019 session. However, as you continue to craft the bill, we do have some recommendations for pieces we believe need to be in it for it to be truly effective and equitable:
  
-  * **Interim targets:** The policy and targets must be consistent with the best climate science and significantly reduce emissions with an economy-wide emissions limit that declines each year. And though the recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change suggests our current state climate goals may be insufficient,​ the legislation should include targets to reduce GHG emissions by at least 45% by 2035 and at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. Given the urgency of the prognosis from the IPCC, a target of ZERO emissions from the covered sectors may well be warranted. ​   ​\ +  * **Interim targets:** The policy and targets must be consistent with the best climate science and significantly reduce emissions with an economy-wide emissions limit that declines each year. And though the recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change suggests our current state climate goals may be insufficient,​ the legislation should include targets to reduce GHG emissions by at least 45% by 2035 and at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. Given the urgency of the prognosis from the IPCC, a target of ZERO emissions from the covered sectors may well be warranted. ​   ​ 
-  * **Decision-making structure:​** We need one that is transparent,​ equitable, flexible, and accountable. Program design and implementation must be created and overseen by representatives of geographic and demographic diversity. All advisory and oversight committees should have an over-representation of historically underrepresented communities;​ the Environmental Justice Task Force, equity groups, and Sovereign Nation representatives must play significant and meaningful roles. Any effective program must have continuous monitoring and oversight to ensure both equity and environmental protections. ​   ​\ + 
-  * **Allowances:​** Utilities should not be given freely assigned allowances, and there should be no more than 25% free allowances for emissions-intensive,​ trade-exposed industries (EITEs). Any accommodation for EITEs should support in-state production, be needs-based only, be regularly re-evaluated,​ and be phased out altogether by 2030.    ​\ +  * **Decision-making structure:​** We need one that is transparent,​ equitable, flexible, and accountable. Program design and implementation must be created and overseen by representatives of geographic and demographic diversity. All advisory and oversight committees should have an over-representation of historically underrepresented communities;​ the Environmental Justice Task Force, equity groups, and Sovereign Nation representatives must play significant and meaningful roles. Any effective program must have continuous monitoring and oversight to ensure both equity and environmental protections. ​   ​ 
-  * **Offsets:​** Offsets should be limited to Oregon-only projects, with a limit of 2%. The program must ensure that offset benefits accrue to Oregon communities,​ do not contribute to pollution “hotspots” in other states, and are only given for emissions reductions that would not have happened in the absence of the offset program. The program must prohibit the use of offsets for nuclear power, fossil fuel-generated energy projects, forest biomass energy projects, and incineration of medical and municipal waste. We must also ensure rigorous accounting methods to accurately assess the carbon sequestration impacts of offset projects, particularly for measures to increase carbon sequestration in forests, wetlands, rangelands, and agricultural lands.  ​\ + 
-  * **Allocation of Proceeds:** Proceeds from the sale of allowances must prioritize investments in low-income, Tribal, and rural communities,​ and especially in communities of color. Resources need to be provided to minimize any adverse impacts of the program on fixed and low-income households. As with offsets, no proceeds should be used for nuclear power, fossil fuel-generated energy projects, forest biomass energy projects, or incineration of medical and municipal waste. Furthermore,​ all projects should pay a Exploring, Enjoying, and Protecting Oregon Since 1978 3 prevailing wage and comply with responsible contracting standards, fair labor standards, and Tribal Employment Rights Ordinances. In addition to programs supporting the clean energy transition for Oregon’s economy, it is important to devote proceeds to climate adaptation and resilience, especially support for local governments and communities. ​   ​\+  * **Allowances:​** Utilities should not be given freely assigned allowances, and there should be no more than 25% free allowances for emissions-intensive,​ trade-exposed industries (EITEs). Any accommodation for EITEs should support in-state production, be needs-based only, be regularly re-evaluated,​ and be phased out altogether by 2030.    ​ 
 + 
 +  * **Offsets:​** Offsets should be limited to Oregon-only projects, with a limit of 2%. The program must ensure that offset benefits accrue to Oregon communities,​ do not contribute to pollution “hotspots” in other states, and are only given for emissions reductions that would not have happened in the absence of the offset program. The program must prohibit the use of offsets for nuclear power, fossil fuel-generated energy projects, forest biomass energy projects, and incineration of medical and municipal waste. We must also ensure rigorous accounting methods to accurately assess the carbon sequestration impacts of offset projects, particularly for measures to increase carbon sequestration in forests, wetlands, rangelands, and agricultural lands.  ​ 
 + 
 +  * **Allocation of Proceeds:** Proceeds from the sale of allowances must prioritize investments in low-income, Tribal, and rural communities,​ and especially in communities of color. Resources need to be provided to minimize any adverse impacts of the program on fixed and low-income households. As with offsets, no proceeds should be used for nuclear power, fossil fuel-generated energy projects, forest biomass energy projects, or incineration of medical and municipal waste. Furthermore,​ all projects should pay a Exploring, Enjoying, and Protecting Oregon Since 1978 3 prevailing wage and comply with responsible contracting standards, fair labor standards, and Tribal Employment Rights Ordinances. In addition to programs supporting the clean energy transition for Oregon’s economy, it is important to devote proceeds to climate adaptation and resilience, especially support for local governments and communities. ​   ​ 
   * **Exemptions:​** There should be no new explicit exemptions from the program and every polluter should be subject to the cap. Any previously existing exemptions, such as those for aircraft and marine fuels, must be closely scrutinized so as not to undercut the overall goals of the program. Furthermore,​ any attempt to exempt the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal from coverage in the legislation – or to consider it an EITE – must absolutely be denied; if built, it would be far and away the state’s greatest GHG emitter and would singlehandedly wreck our climate goals.   * **Exemptions:​** There should be no new explicit exemptions from the program and every polluter should be subject to the cap. Any previously existing exemptions, such as those for aircraft and marine fuels, must be closely scrutinized so as not to undercut the overall goals of the program. Furthermore,​ any attempt to exempt the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal from coverage in the legislation – or to consider it an EITE – must absolutely be denied; if built, it would be far and away the state’s greatest GHG emitter and would singlehandedly wreck our climate goals.
  
sierrapositiononcej.txt · Last modified: 2019/01/26 20:17 by admin