Bud Pierce: Solving Oregon’s transportation woes

Bud Pierce_thb

Bud Pierce for Governor

Unlike many public policy or political issues, the transportation issue gets personal in a hurry, especially if you’re a Portland area commuter. You see it (and you’re stuck in it) almost every day as you head back and forth to work, go to the grocery story, or ferry the kids to school or activities. It’s getting worse.

So why haven’t our state’s roads, bridges, and transportation arteries kept pace with our population growth and demands of the 21st Century? Why is gridlock costing Oregon jobs and driving up prices for working Oregonians who are wasting time stuck in traffic? Failed leadership in Salem.

Gov. Kate Brown’s failure to get a transportation package passed, after saying she wouldn’t allow the Legislature to leave Salem without one, is the definition of failed political leadership. In signing the low-carbon fuel mandate, Brown sided with extreme environmentalist rather than working (and commuting) Oregonians. These forgotten Oregonians will pay from 19 cents up to a dollar more per gallon of gasoline. Brown’s hidden gas tax won’t fix or repair one road or bridge – or, for that matter, reduce global warming. It doomed passage of a transportation package in the 2015 legislative session. In fact, Governor Brown didn’t even include a transportation package in her agenda for the 2016 legislative session.

Bud_in_a_traffic_jam

Photo: Bud knows that not improving our transportation infrastructure will continue to harm Oregon’s economy and quality of life.

Transportation just is NOT a priority for Kate Brown. It is a high priority for Bud Pierce. Here’s his plan:

  • Stop favoring out-of-state companies at the expense of Oregonians. Repeal the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard law so ordinary Oregonians will not have to spend an extra 19 cents to a dollar per gallon of gasoline in a hidden gas tax whose proceeds will go to state-favored, out-of-state, green energy companies.
  • Pass a multi-year transportation package designed specifically to reduce highway road congestion, especially in the Greater Portland Region.
  • Build a system of north-south arterials in Washington County to deal with the problems that the Westside Bypass was supposed to address in order to reduce 217 gridlock and spillover congestion in Clackamas County.
  • Oppose income taxes on employees in a transit districts across Oregon to fund transit projects.
  • Execute strategies that reduce carbon emissions resulting from rush-hour idling and congestion such as incentives to businesses that participate in flex-time scheduling.

Bud Pierce believes we must end “government gridlock and game playing” and “crony capitalism” in Salem to end the congestion that Oregonians sit in every day.

It’s personal for him because it’s personal for you.

Bud Pierce for Governor

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:27 | Posted in 2016 Election, Gov. Kate Brown, Transportation | 46 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • DavidAppell

    Mr. Pierce: Last I heard, the state’s estimate for the cost of the clean fuel bill tops out at $0.19/gallon.

    Do you have something showing that it’s “up to a dollar more per gallon of gasoline,” as you wrote?

    • David Clark

      WOW – only $0.19/gallon wasted on Al Gore’s climate scam!

      Since it is the state estimate it is probably wildly off.

      • DavidAppell

        What specific parts of the science do you disagree with?

        • David Clark

          What science?
          Are you seriously saying there is actual science behind Al Gore’s climate scam? If so please show us the actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.

          • Roger Enout

            IMO, David Appell needs help into a launch vehicle following Marshall Applewhite’s comet clause.
            Later, like a Haley’s commit, return to star in a repast of celestial regatta, admitting his sinking schlep was inhaled from a lot of haute air emanating off Al Gore’s derriere.

          • DavidAppell

            Al Gore has nothing — nothing — to do with climate science, besides communicating it.

            If you don’t know the science of climate change by now, you have placed your head in the sand in order to avoid it.

      • DavidAppell

        Manmade global warming was discovered long before Al Gore came around…… Blaming it all on Gore just shows you come from a political stance.

        • David Clark

          No David, we have been asking you for several years now to show some actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. He have not been able to show any evidence. That means you KNOW there is no evidence.

          • DavidAppell

            “David Clark” = Jim Karlock, someone who uses several pseudonyms on these forums.

            And who like to pretend his question has never been addressed. What a know-nothing.

          • David Clark

            David you are lying – you have NEVER shown credible evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. If you actually had supplied evidence, you could simply paste it here. You don’t because you can’t.

            Speaking of know-nothings, David do you still blame Katrina on global warming:
            “There is no crisis that will change our minds – not heat waves in France, not Katrina, not the disappearance of Arctic ice up north.”

            (From an article credited to David Appell at https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan?commentpage=3)

          • DavidAppell

            False, Karlock.

            year deaths event
            1998 2541 deaths India
            2003 70,000 deaths European heat wave
            2006 3,418 deaths Europe

            2010 55,736 deaths Moscow heat wave

            2013 7,300 deaths Typhoon Haiyan

            2013 > 5000 deaths flooding in Uttarakhand, India
            2015 2000 deaths Pakistan heat wave
            2015 2500 deaths India heat wave

          • David Clark

            So what?
            How do those deaths compare to earlier climates before man’s CO2 became significant (1950 per the IPCC) back for a couple of climate cycles (to about Minoan times)?

          • DavidAppell

            Why should I respond to someone who lies every time he posts, with a variety of fake and made up names?

          • David Clark

            You are the one who bragged to Watts that you had hundreds of fake names.

            you are also the one who claims to have proof that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, but can never seem to post it. If you really have the evidence, just copy & past it here:
            (David’s non existent evidence goes here.)

          • DavidAppell

            “You are the one who bragged to Watts that you had hundreds of fake names.”

            Another lie, Karlock.

            Clearly lying comes naturally to you. Why do it here, when no one is censoring you based on your real name?

            What are you afraid of?

          • DavidAppell

            “you are also the one who claims to have proof that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, but can never seem to post it.”

            You aren’t the least bit interested in an answer. I’ve never seen you post anything scientific in all these years. Clearly you can’t.

            Why should I waste my time on someone only concerned about their own needs?

          • DavidAppell

            By the way, you have never yet defined “dangerous.” (It’s not a scientific term.)

            Dangerous to whom? You?

          • DavidAppell

            David Clark (= Jim Karlock) wrote:
            “You are the one who bragged to Watts that you had hundreds of fake names.”

            You are a liar.

            With no proof whatsoever.

          • David Clark

            Perhaps my memory missed a detail. Is this the correct statement:
            “You are the one who stated that you had many (perhaps you said hundreds or thousands) fake names.”

          • DavidAppell

            David Clark (= Jim Karlock, using a fake name.”

            I never said anything like that. And clearly, you can’t prove that I did.

          • DavidAppell

            The 10 Deadliest Heat Waves in World History

            https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/earths-5th-deadliest-heat-wave-in-recorded-history-kills-1826-in-ind

            9 of 10 since 1980. 7 of 10 since 1998.

          • DavidAppell

            Deaths from Heat in India

            https://www.thehindu.com/data/this-could-be-the-worst-year-for-heat-deaths-in-indias-history-and-thats-an-underestimate/article7254886.ece

            The figure for “heat deaths” shows a trend of about +21 deaths/yr, on a 1990 level of 550 deaths. (Note that does not include the record number of deaths in 2015.) That’s about 3.8% per year.

            On the other hand, the average increase in India’s population since 1990 is 1.7% per year.
            Source: FRED: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/POPTOTINA647NWDB.txt

          • DavidAppell

            There isn’t data to Minoan times, Einstein.

            Nor does there need to be.

          • David Clark

            David is showing his total ignorance. ONLY by comparing current stats to thousands of years of history can we show that current is unusual. That is the first step in showing that we have a climate “problem”.

            That you ignore this shows that you are ignoring science and playing pure politics.

          • DavidAppell

            You haven’t yet said why you routinely lie about your name.

            The comical thing is, it never fools anyone anyway.

          • DavidAppell

            Of course, we don’t need thousands of years of climate data to determine that heat deaths are rising, just as we don’t need thousands of years of economic data to determine that incomes are rising.

            Noting how Karlock dismisses all the evidence he can’t address.

            The 10 Deadliest Heat Waves in World History
            https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/earths-5th-deadliest-heat-wave-in-recorded-history-kills-1826-in-ind

            Worst heatwaves in history: timeline
            https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8653974/Worst-heatwaves-in-history-timeline.html

            Deaths from Heat in India
            https://www.thehindu.com/data/this-could-be-the-worst-year-for-heat-deaths-in-indias-history-and-thats-an-underestimate/article7254886.ece

          • David Clark

            David, how does heat prove that man’s CO2 is the cause?
            How can you claim today’s climate has changed because of man’s CO2, if you don’t know what past climates were?

          • DavidAppell

            (“David Clark” = Jim Karlock, someone afraid to use their real name.)

            He wrote:
            “David, how does heat prove that man’s CO2 is the cause?”

            From observations, such as:

            “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
            https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
            https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Their press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
            https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

            How is it you are unfamilar with such work?

          • David Clark

            Which of those prove that it is CO2 causing the alleged effect & which proves it is man’s 55 of the annual CO2 emissions instead of nature’s 95% of annual CO2 emissions? Please quote the relevant part and post it here.

          • DavidAppell

            David Clark (=Jim Karlock, using a fake name):

            So you can’t even read a scientific paper’s abstract and understand what it means. Ha ha.

            Get lost, dummy — you’re pathetic.

          • David Clark

            He David,

            The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/ (Local)

            https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2962114-0/abstract (Local)

            The paper – Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study

          • DavidAppell

            (“David Clark” = Jim Karlock, still afraid to use his real name)

            Not that your Lancet study hardly looked at the 3 B people who live in the subtropics. So it’s a lousy indicator of risk due to extreme heat.

            People can protect themselves from cold. It’s much harder to protect yourself from heat, especially if you are poor and live in the subtropics.

            It makes zero sense to heat up the entire world because big governments won’t help their poor with heat. It’s much harder for poor countries like India to provide A/C for their entire population.

            Warming up the entire world would be like like cooling down your entire house just so you can leave the butter on the table and have it not melt. Dumb.

          • DavidAppell

            You have to wonder if Karlock cares about a single person on the planet other than himself.

            So far the evidence says he doesn’t.

          • David Clark

            Don’t change the subject — you have NEVER shown credible evidence that man’s
            CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. If you actually had supplied
            evidence, you could simply paste it here. You don’t because you can’t.

          • DavidAppell

            (“David Clark” = Jim Karlock, someone afraid to use his real name.)

            The 2010 Moscow heat wave killed about 50,000 people.

            By any normal person’s interpretation, it was “dangerous.” And obviously so.

          • DavidAppell

            David Clark (= Jim Karlock, using a fake name) wrote:
            “ONLY by comparing current stats to thousands of years of history can we show that current is unusual.”

            Utterly false.

            We know that 20th warming is very statistically significant — and that’s the criteria we need to prove modern warming.

            In no way to you need thousands of years of data. Though that be supplied too:

            “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
            https://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

            And here’s a huge collaboration of about six dozen scientists from all around the world:

            “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
            https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

            In fact, over 40 hockey sticks have been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature:

            https://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html

          • DavidAppell

            “David Clark” (= Jim Karlock, using a false name) wrote:
            “How do those deaths compare to earlier climates before man’s CO2 became significant (1950 per the IPCC) back for a couple of climate cycles (to about Minoan times)?”

            This is a crackpot claim. Obviously deaths now can’t be compared to Minoan times, because too much else has changed since them — medicine, health care, housing, standard of living, etc. A huge array of socioeconomic conditions.

            Think, Karlock, think.

          • DavidAppell

            Karlock, why do you lie about your name?
            Lying seems to come easily to you….

            As I’ve told you repeatedly, you are not in danger from climate change. Don’t fret so much. Just turn up your A/C a little, and your life can go on as blinded as ever from the impacts on the rest of the world.

  • Bob Clark

    The cost of the clean fuel bill is over 19 cents per gallon because of physics and the way the 19 cent cap works. Right now the market price for ethanol at the wholesale level is $1.40 per gallon, and that of pure gasoline $0.91. But the real kicker is physics which is ignored by the 19 cent cap calculation. A gallon of ethanol contains only two thirds of the energy/power driving equivalence of a gallon of pure gasoline. So, at the wholesale level (transferable in lock step to the retail level), the cost of ethanol is equivalently $2.10 per gallon versus pure gasoline at $0.91.

    Now academic and research entity studies find ethanol may not actually have a positive impact in lowering CO 2 emissions; and even those that indicate there is a positive net impact, the rate of savings is perhaps 20% per gallon. So, in order to reduce CO 2 emissions by 10 percent may mean increasing the ethanol content of a gallon of motor fuel to 50%, perhaps more, since we are starting from 10% content. So, the effective cost of ethanol is more like 28 to 29 cents per gallon.

    But this is not all. Ethanol which is pretty much the only economically available substitute (and it may not be able to be mass produced to achieve 50% content if adopted more globally, as it takes out land (which also reduces its ability to reduce net carbon dioxide emissions)); ethanol is very corrosive to most all vehicle fuel systems relative to pure gasoline. So, more automobiles will have to be turned over. Once more, there will be more stopping at the filling station, and causing more junk food purchases (except for certain democrat program robots who don’t live life but fight it rather for some the stupid idea you can somehow control the weather like you turn your thermostat). More state gasoline revenues will not surprisingly result, which in turn will probably be wasted with its own set of carbon dioxide emissions.

    And yet when you think about it, oil itself comes from dead leaves and other organic matter. It too is renewable if allowed a small speck of the age of the universe.

    Eventually we’ll break from these busy body state regulations, and we’ll be burning more wood in our woodstoves. Since the Dems don’t believe in jail time and have a hard time tracking down peoples’ finances, maybe the best strategy is to do end rounds around the state bureaucrats. Maybe more folks go the route of the occupiers in Malheur county.

    If Donald Trump/Ted Cruz win the presidency, I will be so happy I plan to dye my hair platinum orange and do the Apprentice thing by going down to the legislature and saying: your fired!

    • DavidAppell

      Bob, get real. No one is going to increase the ethanol content of gasoline to 50%. That’s laughable.

      “Now academic and research entity studies find ethanol may not actually have a positive impact in lowering CO 2 emissions.”

      This isn’t new — it’s been known for years. Bush’s efforts to push ethanol were very likely a mistake.

      • redbean

        “No one is going to increase the ethanol content of gasoline to 50%. That’s laughable.”

        That was Bob’s point.

        • DavidAppell

          That’s what Bob Clark thought was needed. Which is about where his thoughts stopped.

    • DavidAppell

      “And yet when you think about it, oil itself comes from dead leaves and other dead organic matter. It too is renewable if allowed a small speck of the age of the universe.”

      Ha! What baloney…. it takes millions of years for oil to form. We will have used it all up in about 200 years…. So, no, oil is in no sense “renewable.”

      • redbean

        David, a “small speck of the age of the universe” can be translated as “millions of years.” Bob was being facetious.

        • DavidAppell

          Get real — Bob Clark has amply demonstrated here, over the years, that he has no sense of humor.

          Nice try, though.

    • DavidAppell

      “If Donald Trump/Ted Cruz win the presidency, I will be so happy I plan to dye my hair platinum orange and do the Apprentice thing by going down to the legislature and saying: your fired!”

      You have no power to do that, so people will just laugh at you… but while you’re down there, maybe you can mock a few disabled people, huh?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)