You were editor of a newspaper that has never failed to support industry projects or promoted unbiased environmental analysis. And now you suggest environmentalists are not "green" enough and don't follow the science. State regulation has never been set in stone, nor has the law. Or maybe you think the law should be so clear that we don't need lawyers or courts to agree on it.
Rampant insincerity and twisted argument coming from an author who wholeheartedly supported building West Coast largest coal terminal and world's largest fracked gas methanol refinery.
Just for the record, I don’t recall, supporting the cossl terminal. I wasn’t writing commentary at the time. I do object to the arbitrary nature of state regulatory authority. Because in the end we have to have the law, or there will be no freedom, and no predictability
It is with dismay that when attempting to discuss personal carbon footprints (the impact of our choices in living situations, recreational travel, energy consumption), even with my liberal (ish) friends, I'm met with silence. We seem to favor some government leadership but, on a personal level, people are making few, even relatively easy, adjustments to reduce their carbon contribution. I'm as guilty as most for being wasteful (notice all these commas I've wasted?) but we should be able to discuss our choices. On another note: The Columbia River Keeper will oppose any development along the Columbia (I state that as fact, not with judgement).
There has been development along the Columbia River that has not been opposed by Columbia Riverkeeper or environmentalists. The new cruise ship dock at Port of Kalama being one example.
You were editor of a newspaper that has never failed to support industry projects or promoted unbiased environmental analysis. And now you suggest environmentalists are not "green" enough and don't follow the science. State regulation has never been set in stone, nor has the law. Or maybe you think the law should be so clear that we don't need lawyers or courts to agree on it.
Rampant insincerity and twisted argument coming from an author who wholeheartedly supported building West Coast largest coal terminal and world's largest fracked gas methanol refinery.
Just for the record, I don’t recall, supporting the cossl terminal. I wasn’t writing commentary at the time. I do object to the arbitrary nature of state regulatory authority. Because in the end we have to have the law, or there will be no freedom, and no predictability
It is with dismay that when attempting to discuss personal carbon footprints (the impact of our choices in living situations, recreational travel, energy consumption), even with my liberal (ish) friends, I'm met with silence. We seem to favor some government leadership but, on a personal level, people are making few, even relatively easy, adjustments to reduce their carbon contribution. I'm as guilty as most for being wasteful (notice all these commas I've wasted?) but we should be able to discuss our choices. On another note: The Columbia River Keeper will oppose any development along the Columbia (I state that as fact, not with judgement).
There has been development along the Columbia River that has not been opposed by Columbia Riverkeeper or environmentalists. The new cruise ship dock at Port of Kalama being one example.