Portland’s climate activists are having a really good Wednesday.
Mayor Charlie Hales and Commissioner Amanda Fritz next week plan to introduce two resolutions that, if passed by City Council, would officially declare Portland’s opposition to fossil fuels.
The wording of the resolutions is complicated, but places the city in official opposition to all projects “that would increase the amount of crude oil being transported by rail” or expand “infrastructure whose primary purpose is transporting or storing fossil fuels in or through Portland or adjacent waterways.”
Bob Sallinger, conservation director for Portland Audubon, calls the resolutions “flat-out historic.”
“This is new territory and it’s incredibly exciting that the city is moving this way,” he says. “With the Climate Action Plan in place, and the opposition to Pembina, there’s just been an explosion of activity in the Pacific Northwest. We’re being targeted for many projects and this is a critical step in starting to say no to supporting fossil fuels.”
READ MORE AFTER THE JUMP
The city cannot legally ban fossil fuels from being shipped in or out via road, rail, or water, thanks to interstate commerce laws, but it can set local policy that bans or severely limits the storage and transport of fossil fuels based on health and safety threats or environmental considerations. For example, Pembina Pipeline Corporation was working with the city and the Port of Portland on a huge project that would have allowed the company to develop a propane storage and shipping facility at Terminal 6. The only thing standing in the way was an environmental overlay zoning policy put in place to protect the sensitive riparian areas along the Willamette River. To put it simply, Pembina could have shipped the propane here, but it isn’t allowed to pipe it onto ships for transport overseas.
Nick Caleb, who co-authored a memorandum presented to the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and Hales’ office suggesting the city adopt “substantive policy” opposing fossil fuel infrastructure, says that, if passed, these policies would be the strongest of any major city in the US.
Sallinger agrees and says passing these resolutions would be the first major step in crafting future policies.
“It’s going to take a lot of work because this is new territory,” Sallinger says. “For a major city, with a major port, this is a very comprehensive approach to fossil fuel policy creation.”
The commissioners are scheduled to take up the issue at 2:30 pm on November 4.
Wait, will this actually affect the type of energy being used, somehow decrease usage of fossil fuels — or is this just posturing?
Sallinger increasingly seems a joke.
It is not a joke to lead the nation in climate policy, even if it is on a small scale. These resolutions look like they are setting up Portland to take some of the strongest possible positions on fossil fuel infrastructure. The NW is currently being assaulted by dozens of proposals to ship coal, oil and gas to world markets. If other West Coast cities follow our example, we could start to see real change.
If you actually read the resolutions, found here: http://350pdx.org/resolution-opposing-oil-trains/ and http://350pdx.org/fossil-fuel-policy-resolution/ , you’ll see that this isn’t just posturing. This is an unprecedented and important step forward, and a blueprint for future policy. Cities are taking it upon themselves to lead the way on climate action. If all cities that find themselves in the path of the extractivist superhighway were to adopt similar policies, we can halt the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Without the infrastructure, there’s nothing to stand on. The PNW is under threat of becoming a fossil fuel corridor. The 27 proposed fossil fuel infrastructure projects would transport as much carbon as 5 Keystone Pipelines annually. I would venture to say that stopping even just said local projects would have a significant effect on energy policy, let alone the combined effects of cities following in Portland’s footsteps.
In addition to the climate aspects, which are significant, it’s absolutely crazy to build potentially explosive infrastructure on liquefaction zones when you are expecting a major quake. There are dual concerns of climate and public health / disaster preparedness at play here. When you take the full context into account, it’s quite sensible.
An additional piece should be added to require current petrochemical storage facilities to be retrofitted for earthquake readiness at the expense of the companies involved. The Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake has one in three chances of occurring in the next fifty years. Liquifaction would turn the Columbia shoreline into an instant Superfund site and would hamper Portland’s recovery for years, not even to consider the damage to ecosystems in and on the Columbia from Portland to the sea and beyond.
To access contact info for the Commissioners, the text of the resolution, and an easy form to email portland commissioners, you can visit http://350pdx.org/fossil-fuel-policy/
Go Portland!
Ahh, the hypocrites are all excited now!
If approved, these resolutions would give city, county and Metro. permitting agencies more support if their findings are to not grant these fossil fuel shipping and storing applicants their necessary permits. Again, this is an important first step in keeping Portland from becoming a fossil fuel chute.