Featured Stories

Other Pamplin Media Group sites

Readers' Letters: Our economy sputters on dirty fossil fuel


Dirty gasoline has become the foundation of our driver-oriented society, but it does not have to be this way. Oregon has the opportunity to move away from our oil dependency to cleaner fuel.

It is more environmentally friendly and would expand the energy industry in Oregon. Currently, $6 million is spent out of state on fossil fuel imports, which represents a significant loss to the economy. These figures can remain in state by removing the current sunset, which will end the government investment in clean fuel by 2015.

By lifting the sunset and passing Senate Bill 488, the Oregon Legislature can create an economic opportunity for the energy industry and consumers, saving $1.6 billion in fuel costs and generating 29,000 jobs. The solution is simple and results are monumental.

I urge the Legislature to end the sunset on clean fuel and create a boom in the local energy industry.

Kelsey White-Davis

Southwest Portland

Green energy creates more jobs

There is a tangible sense that the people of Oregon are proud of their uniquely beautiful environment, and seem fervent in their defense of it.

Yet the state is still heavily reliant on oil, much of which comes from out of state and has little or no economic benefit to the people of Oregon. This reliance on fossil fuels is causing both environmental and economic degradation. Oregon sends more than $6 billion out of state in the process of importing gas and diesel.

The sunset on the clean fuels program is creating an unnecessary barrier to investment in green energy and thus stifling job creation. I believe we cannot let big oil companies dictate our environmental and economic future. By passing the clean fuels program, Oregon can help lead the way toward energy independence and environmental well-being, protecting its natural beauty while providing an economic stimulus to our state.

Alasdair Neilson

Southeast Portland

Zero tolerance best for impaired driving

I would like to respond to the guest column by John Henry Hingson (Reason for legal alcohol limit cut a bit wobbly, May 30): The National Traffic Safety Bureau is right on track. I am for the possibility of zero tolerance. Impaired is impaired.

The points offered can be overcome:

• Aggressive police? More training will help.

• Business impact? Maybe they would be more responsible for those they are serving.

• Misinterpretation of a medical issue vs. a person under the influence of a substance? That would be better than just ignoring the possibility of the person being under the influence of a substance.

• People unable to calculate how much to drink/use? Call a cab or find a designated driver if you consume anything.

Wouldn’t it be great if everyone could be responsible should they have consumed a substance and ask for a designated driver or call a cab? However, society has had to step in and enforce laws to assist them in making better choices.

I believe zero tolerance should be enforced.

Bobbi Day

Southwest Portland

Bridge fence for ‘city that wastes’?

There is no limit to spending money to rename streets, and now the city is considering spending millions to put up fences on the Vista Avenue bridge (in an attempt to curb people jumping in suicide attempts).

If people are determined to end it all, there is no limit to other places to do so and this will not stop them from doing a free-will act. Is this “The City That Works” or “The City That Wastes”?

Carl Ronson