GoGreenNation news

Why fast-tracking oil drilling in California won’t lower prices at the pump

News Feed

Tuesday, September 16, 2025

California lawmakers just passed legislation to support the oil and gas industry in an attempt to lower costs for consumers. Below, an environmental scholar argues that making it easier to drill oil won’t lower gas prices. The opposing view: A business professor says the deal is an overdue but also piecemeal approach for such a critical problem. Guest Commentary written by Deborah Sivas Deborah Sivas is a professor who teaches environmental law and environmental social science at Stanford University. California’s demand for gasoline has fallen steadily over the last two decades as state consumers shift to cleaner electric and hybrid vehicles. What’s giving some state policymakers heartburn is the fact that falling demand for gasoline means declining demand for in-state petroleum refining. In response, some California refineries have begun consolidating, converting or closing. Though this is good news for nearby communities burdened by refinery pollution, state officials worry refining capacity could fall faster than gasoline consumption, driving up pump prices as short-term demand exceeds supply. The oil industry has stoked this fear and proposed a dangerous solution: Exempt all new oil and gas drilling from the California Environmental Quality Act, colloquially known as CEQA (pronounced see-kwah). The industry aggressively pushed state legislation for that. What legislators passed last week, Senate Bill 237, didn’t go that far but aims to make it easier to expand drilling in oil-rich Kern County. Still, the same issues arise from this exemption. Fast-tracking new oil drilling permits will do nothing to affect pump prices. California has been extracting crude oil for 150 years. By the start of the 20th century, it was the leading oil-producing state in the nation. Helping that boom were natural gas deposits, which create pressure in oil reservoirs that allows crude to flow to the surface. California’s early oil derricks sometimes caused explosive gushers that sprayed oil high into the air, prompting a wave of local regulation. The days of gushers are gone. With natural gas stores largely depleted, California oil fields now contain mostly heavy crude oil, often tucked into folded geology and difficult to extract. Today’s drillers typically inject steam or hot water to lower the oil’s viscosity and increase its flow. That is energy-intensive and expensive, so drilling in California isn’t as cost competitive as Texas or North Dakota. These fundamental economics — not environmental laws — largely dictate the level of in-state crude oil production. California already imports most of the crude oil feeding its refineries. Refinery operators understand this and are making decisions based on long-term business projections. As the state produces less oil, there is less need for in-state refining. That transition presents an opportunity. Many refineries sit on valuable land that could be repurposed for more sustainable uses. Legislation that exempts new oil drilling from environmental quality standards won’t magically change this reality. In fact, current projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration suggest global oil prices will fall over the next year or two, perhaps to levels that will make most California production uncompetitive. Global market prices are the likely reason many new wells the state approved in recent years haven’t been drilled. Gutting environmental regulations would disenfranchise communities trying to protect themselves from potential risks associated with oil production, such as toxic air pollution, water and soil contamination and drilling rig explosions. If state officials want to smooth California’s transition from transportation fuel, they should look for solutions such as facilitating port improvements to accommodate increases in oil imports. And state lawmakers must remain vigilant about price gouging as the market consolidates to fewer players. CEQA requires California’s oil regulators to study, disclose and mitigate potential effects of drilling. Contrary to the industry’s narrative, CEQA is neither the cause of falling gasoline demand nor the solution to price spikes. We should celebrate the clean energy path California is blazing, not hastily eviscerate one of its bedrock environmental laws.

Lawmakers just enabled fast-tracking of new oil drilling permits in Kern County. Gas prices are mainly moved by other economic forces.

Oil pumps around the Elk Hills Power Station along Elk Hills Road on March 29, 2024. The Elk Hills oil field is the site of the new carbon capture project that captures carbon emissions from oil and gas facilities and then injects them underground. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Guest Commentary written by

Deborah Sivas

Deborah Sivas is a professor who teaches environmental law and environmental social science at Stanford University.

California’s demand for gasoline has fallen steadily over the last two decades as state consumers shift to cleaner electric and hybrid vehicles.

What’s giving some state policymakers heartburn is the fact that falling demand for gasoline means declining demand for in-state petroleum refining. In response, some California refineries have begun consolidating, converting or closing.

Though this is good news for nearby communities burdened by refinery pollution, state officials worry refining capacity could fall faster than gasoline consumption, driving up pump prices as short-term demand exceeds supply.

The oil industry has stoked this fear and proposed a dangerous solution: Exempt all new oil and gas drilling from the California Environmental Quality Act, colloquially known as CEQA (pronounced see-kwah). The industry aggressively pushed state legislation for that. What legislators passed last week, Senate Bill 237, didn’t go that far but aims to make it easier to expand drilling in oil-rich Kern County.

Still, the same issues arise from this exemption. Fast-tracking new oil drilling permits will do nothing to affect pump prices.

California has been extracting crude oil for 150 years. By the start of the 20th century, it was the leading oil-producing state in the nation. Helping that boom were natural gas deposits, which create pressure in oil reservoirs that allows crude to flow to the surface. California’s early oil derricks sometimes caused explosive gushers that sprayed oil high into the air, prompting a wave of local regulation.

The days of gushers are gone. With natural gas stores largely depleted, California oil fields now contain mostly heavy crude oil, often tucked into folded geology and difficult to extract. Today’s drillers typically inject steam or hot water to lower the oil’s viscosity and increase its flow. That is energy-intensive and expensive, so drilling in California isn’t as cost competitive as Texas or North Dakota.

These fundamental economics — not environmental laws — largely dictate the level of in-state crude oil production. California already imports most of the crude oil feeding its refineries. Refinery operators understand this and are making decisions based on long-term business projections.

As the state produces less oil, there is less need for in-state refining. That transition presents an opportunity. Many refineries sit on valuable land that could be repurposed for more sustainable uses.

Legislation that exempts new oil drilling from environmental quality standards won’t magically change this reality. In fact, current projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration suggest global oil prices will fall over the next year or two, perhaps to levels that will make most California production uncompetitive. Global market prices are the likely reason many new wells the state approved in recent years haven’t been drilled.

Gutting environmental regulations would disenfranchise communities trying to protect themselves from potential risks associated with oil production, such as toxic air pollution, water and soil contamination and drilling rig explosions.

If state officials want to smooth California’s transition from transportation fuel, they should look for solutions such as facilitating port improvements to accommodate increases in oil imports. And state lawmakers must remain vigilant about price gouging as the market consolidates to fewer players.

CEQA requires California’s oil regulators to study, disclose and mitigate potential effects of drilling. Contrary to the industry’s narrative, CEQA is neither the cause of falling gasoline demand nor the solution to price spikes.

We should celebrate the clean energy path California is blazing, not hastily eviscerate one of its bedrock environmental laws.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

Robert Redford, Oscar-winning actor and director, dies aged 89

Redford achieved huge critical and commercial success in the 60s and 70s with a string of hits including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Way We Were and The Sting, before becoming an Oscar-winning directorRobert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah. Continue reading...

Robert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah.Redford was one of the defining movie stars of the 1970s, crossing with ease between the Hollywood new wave and the mainstream film industry, before also becoming an Oscar-winning director and producer in the ensuing decades. He played a key role in the establishment of American independent cinema by co-founding the Sundance film festival, which acted as a platform for films such as Reservoir Dogs, The Blair Witch Project, Donnie Darko, Fruitvale Station and Coda.Redford with Paul Newman in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969. Photograph: 20th Century Fox/Sportsphoto/AllstarRedford also acquired a reputation as one of Hollywood’s leading liberals and campaigned on environmental issues including acting as a trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council advocacy group and vocally opposing the now-cancelled Keystone XL pipeline.Born Charles Robert Redford in 1936, he grew up in Los Angeles and, after he was expelled from the University of Colorado, studied acting at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. After playing a series of small parts on TV, stage and film, he began to make headway in the early 60s, being nominated for a best supporting actor Emmy in 1962 for The Voice of Charlie Pont and winning a lead role in the original 1963 Broadway production of Neil Simon’s hit play Barefoot in the Park. Redford’s film breakthrough arrived in 1965: an eye-catching role as a bisexual film star in Inside Daisy Clover opposite Natalie Wood, for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe.After a series of solid Hollywood films, including The Chase and a screen adaptation of Barefoot in the Park, Redford had a huge hit with the 1969 outlaw western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, in which he starred opposite Paul Newman and Katharine Ross. It was nominated for seven Oscars, though none were for the actors.Redford starred in Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here, the first directing credit in over 20 years by former blacklistee Abraham Polonsky, and then a string of key 1970s hits: frontier western Jeremiah Johnson (1972), period romance The Way We Were (1973) opposite Barbra Streisand, crime comedy The Sting (1973), again opposite Newman, and literary adaptation The Great Gatsby (1974). Redford followed these up with conspiracy thriller Three Days of the Condor (1975) and Watergate drama All the President’s Men (1976), co-starring with Dustin Hoffman.Redford with Jane Fonda in the 1967 film version of Barefoot in the Park. Photograph: Silver Screen Collection/Getty ImagesAfter a prolonged break from acting in the late 70s, Redford turned to directing with the ensemble drama Ordinary People, adapted from the novel by Judith Guest; a substantial hit, it won four Oscars in 1981, including best picture and best director for Redford – an achievement he never managed for his acting.His success as an actor continued in the 1980s and 1990s, though perhaps with less of the cutting-edge impact of his 1970s work. Baseball drama The Natural (adapted from a Bernard Malamud novel) in 1984 was followed by Out of Africa in 1985, in which he played big game hunter Denys Finch Hatton opposite Meryl Streep’s Danish aristocrat. He returned to directing with The Milagro Beanfield War in 1988 and A River Runs Through It in 1992, both grappling in different ways with rural America. A year later he made what in retrospect was something of a turning point: an unalloyed Hollywood project, the erotic thriller Indecent Proposal, in which his businessman character offers a million dollars to sleep with Demi Moore’s character. It re-established Redford as a commercial force. Later in the 90s he directed Quiz Show and The Horse Whisperer (the latter of which he also starred in).With fellow winners Robert De Niro, Sissy Spacek and Ordinary People producer Ronald L Schwary at the Oscars in 1981. Photograph: APIt was in this period that the Sundance film festival – which Redford’s production company had co-founded in 1978 as the Utah/US film festival and renamed in 1984 after Redford’s Sundance Institute – began to exert its influence as a showcase for US independent cinema, promoting the likes of Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith. Its impact only increased in subsequent decades as a forum for boosting films’ commercial chances and achieving awards recognition, showcasing films such as 500 Days of Summer, Napoleon Dynamite, Whiplash, Fruitvale Station and Coda.skip past newsletter promotionTake a front seat at the cinema with our weekly email filled with all the latest news and all the movie action that mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionRedford’s 2007 Afghan war film Lions for Lambs was a disappointment, but an impressive solo performance in the 2013 survival-at-sea drama All Is Lost went some way to compensating for it. In 2014 Redford joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Hydra leader Alexander Pierce in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. He said at the time: “I wanted to experience this new form of film-making that’s taken over, where you have kind of cartoon characters brought to life through high technology.” He made a cameo in the same role in Avengers: Endgame in 2019.Redford in his final major film role in The Old Man & the Gun in 2018. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich/APIn the mid-2010s Redford scaled back his film-making activities, handing over stewardship of the Sundance film festival and announcing his retirement from acting. His final substantial role was in the 2018 crime drama The Old Man & the Gun, directed by David Lowery.Redford was awarded an honorary Oscar in 2002, a lifetime achievement Golden Lion from the Venice film festival in 2017, and an honorary César in 2019. In 2010 he was also made a Chevalier of the Légion d’honneur and in 2016 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama.Redford was married twice: to historian Lola Van Wagenen between 1958 and 1985, with whom he had four children, and artist Sibylle Szaggars in 2009.

Business

Resources

Technology

Can Diet and Exercise Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease? What the Research Says

Early studies suggest that lifestyle changes such as diet, exercise and social engagement may help slow or prevent Alzheimer’s symptoms—but the evidence is inconsistent, and many doctors remain cautious

This article is part of “Innovations In: Alzheimer's Disease” an editorially independent special report that was produced with financial support from Eisai.When Juli comes home after work, her husband doesn’t regale her with stories about his photography business the way he once did. Instead he proudly shows her a pill container emptied of the 20 supplements and medications he takes every day. Rather than griping about traffic, he tells her about his walk. When they go out to a favorite Mexican restaurant, he might opt for a side salad instead of tortilla chips with his quesadilla. “He’s actually consuming green food, which is new,” says Juli, who asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her husband’s privacy.Over the past year Juli’s husband has agreed to change his daily habits in hopes of halting the steady progression of Alzheimer’s disease, which he was diagnosed with in December 2023 at age 62. Juli and her husband are both self-employed, and their insurance plans didn’t cover the positron-emission tomography scans for disease tracking that a neurologist prescribed, which would have cost thousands of dollars. So they decided to spend that money on a doctor who promises that diet and lifestyle changes can treat Alzheimer’s. He recommended a keto diet, along with light cardio exercise and strength training. He also prescribed a bevy of supplements, such as creatine, which Juli’s husband takes alongside the memantine and donepezil prescribed by his neurologist. Juli doesn’t expect the diet and daily walks to cure her husband, but she hopes the healthy lifestyle will help manage and even improve his condition. It feels like common sense. “You stop eating fried food, you move your butt, and you feel better,” she says.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Increasingly, evidence suggests that addressing health problems such as vision and hearing loss, stress, poor diet, diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol and high blood pressure can help slow or even prevent Alzheimer’s symptoms. It’s a tantalizingly simple solution to a complicated condition that has proved difficult to treat. For families like Juli’s that have been left with a grim diagnosis and few options, lifestyle changes bring a much needed sense of hope and agency. But researchers worry about overpromising on the efficacy of these changes, especially for people already experiencing dementia symptoms. Evidence around the importance of different diets, exercises and activities—when to start them and which to prioritize—is mixed, and only in a few high-quality studies have researchers examined large, diverse groups of people. It’s a promising but nascent field of research, one that scientists worry gives patients dangerous and heartbreaking hope for a cure that doesn’t exist.“There are a lot of claims,” says Miia Kivipelto, a dementia researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. She worries about expensive but unproven regimens that promise to reverse cognitive decline, restore and protect the brain, or significantly improve cognition for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s or other dementias. “Of course, people want to have hope,” she says. But she cautions against making promises that can’t be upheld. “It’s risk reduction,” she says. “That’s maybe what we can promise.”Kivipelto led the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER), a trial that enrolled more than 1,200 residents of Finland between the ages of 60 and 77. Results were published in 2017. They showed that after two years, participants who were given nutritional advice, exercise regimens and brain-training games had improved their executive function, processing speeds and complex memory by about 83, 150 and 40 percent, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take those measures. Kivipelto has continued to follow that initial FINGER cohort and found that several years after the initial trial, their health in general continues to be better than that of their counterparts. The participants had a lower risk of stroke, had fewer medical emergency room visits and needed less inpatient care. Now Kivipelto is running World Wide FINGERS, a global network of studies investigating the same interventions in different countries and populations.It’s not clear whether these interventions prevent disease onset or simply delay it.Similarly encouraging data have come from the Systematic Multi-Domain Alzheimer Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a two-year randomized, controlled study. Researchers tested the effect of treating modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension, social isolation and physical inactivity with more than 170 septuagenarians and octogenarians at high risk for dementia. Participants chose a few interventions to prioritize out of eight options, such as improved physical fitness or social connection. After two years, no matter which intervention people opted for, those who received individualized treatments had reduced risk factors for dementia and a 74 percent greater increase in cognition compared with their counterparts in the control group.It’s not clear whether these interventions prevent disease onset or simply delay it. At a certain point, prevention and treatment become almost the same thing: if people can postpone the onset of symptoms until they’re 85 or 90 years old, Kivipelto says, “they might die of something else.” A report from a commission on dementia from the Lancet Group—which comprises experts who make recommendations on health policy and practice—suggests that addressing a range of these lifestyle-based risk factors could help reduce the global incidence of Alzheimer’s and dementia by 45 percent population-wide. For people with a genetic predisposition to dementia, introducing diet, exercise, and other modifications before symptoms appear might be particularly important for fending off illness.The idea that diet and exercise could curb a disease that currently affects more than 55 million people globally is an exciting prospect. But scientists say the field is simply too young for anyone to make bold assertions that lifestyle interventions could act as treatments or cures. “We don’t have mature information,” says Howard Feldman, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego.One big caveat is that studies such as SMARRT and FINGER were conducted with people who had mild cognitive decline, not full-blown dementia. “There are people who are really exaggerating some of these claims,” says Kristine Yaffe, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the lead author on the SMARRT study. “There’s very little evidence that these [interventions] work when people have the disease.”Also, the list of possible risk factors gets longer as more data emerge. When Kivipelto started FINGER, she didn’t look at elements such as poor sleep and stress. But more evidence suggests that these factors could increase risk for Alzheimer’s. Meanwhile interventions that had shown initial promise, such as the MIND diet—a diet geared toward brain health that combines elements of Mediterranean and hypertension-focused diets—weren’t backed by further research.Answering questions about lifestyle changes—what works, what doesn’t and why—is particularly challenging because these interventions are not as easy to quantify as medications are. When researchers test pharmaceuticals, they’re often investigating how a molecule interacts with a specific receptor. “We’re gonna look at making sure that we’ve got target engagement, that we’ve got the right amount of medicine for the target and that we’re getting the right effects,” Feldman says. Nonmedical interventions don’t work in that way. Take exercise: There’s no particular receptor to examine. Instead exercise might lead to better blood flow in the brain. It might affect cerebral metabolism. It could affect insulin levels or increase oxygen flow. All these factors have been linked to the development of Alzheimer’s in some way.Then there’s the matter of dosage: What is the right amount of exercise? How much should people exert themselves and for how long? And how can researchers assess compliance? When researchers test pills, they can easily dispense medication and count how many pills are left at the end of a trial. It’s much harder to know whether someone in a lifestyle study has done the assigned exercises or whether all participants worked out at the same intensity.Another big unknown is when these interventions should begin. Some research suggests that to reduce risk factors, middle age might be the most impactful time. Kivipelto says that it’s never too late to start but that the most effective interventions may vary with age. Stress and sleep might be bigger risk factors in middle age, whereas social isolation might become more important as people grow older. “You should have a kind of check wherever you are in your life,” she says.Perhaps the biggest limitation, however, is that scientists can’t measure all the biological and environmental systems at play, nor can they follow enough people for a long enough period to understand which systems are most important. One theory suggests that health interventions—such as diet, exercise and social stimulation—work because they boost cognitive reserve, or the ability of a person’s brain to resist dementia. People with more cognitive reserve might not show symptoms even if they have the same pathology as someone else who is symptomatic. Researchers think being active, eating right and socializing might help build up that cognitive-reserve buffer. But they can’t measure it. There is no known biomarker for cognitive reserve and no way to measure its effects over time. “It’s an evolving concept,” Kivipelto says.Even while scientists work on more high-quality studies of lifestyle changes for Alzheimer’s—with large, diverse patient populations, control groups, and careful measurements for the intensity of the intervention—numerous commercial companies claim to offer scientifically backed cures. These products, including the approach Juli and her husband are trying, are often based on research in predatory journals, which charge authors high fees to publish papers that look scientific but have none of the oversight of peer-reviewed publications. Others lack rigorous trials and rely only on case reports that don’t describe study methods and can’t be replicated. Still others haven’t been tested in large groups or in humans at all. For example, small studies have suggested ketosis could help improve cognition, but no large-scale clinical trials have tested the hypothesis. Similarly, creatine supplements have shown promise in mice but have not been tested extensively in humans. No large, high-quality clinical trials have shown that supplements can improve human cognition or brain health, but companies selling these products now represent an industry valued at more than $6 billion globally.Some people spend their life savings to follow a protocol that requires them to remediate mold in their homes, even though the evidence linking mold and dementia is debated. Other families report that sticking to a restrictive diet ultimately feels cruel when a parent or spouse has few pleasures left. Neurologist Joanna Hellmuth, then at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote an article in 2020 in the Lancet Neurology about pseudoscience and dementia, warning that fraudulent solutions can be financially and emotionally harmful for families. “Hope is important in the face of incurable diseases and intuitive interventions can be compelling,” she wrote. “However, unsupported interventions are not medically, ethically, or financially benign, particularly when other parties might stand to gain.”Even under the best of circumstances, changes to diet and exercise cannot ward off Alzheimer’s for everyone. Yaffe has seen patients who play bridge, go running and practice über-healthy lifestyles only to be astonished to learn they also have Alzheimer’s. “There’s something called bad luck, and there’s something called genetics,” she says. Scientists measure the impact of lifestyle modifications in population-wide estimates that don’t translate to individual risk. Diet, exercise, hearing aids, and other interventions might reduce the global incidence of dementia by 45 percent, but that doesn’t mean they will reduce your specific risk by the same amount. Yaffe estimates that roughly half of a person’s Alzheimer’s risk is based on genetics, and half probably depends on their activity level, diet and luck. But the biggest risk factor is age.Even as Juli is gently prodding her husband to eat more broccoli, she’s also preparing for his inevitable decline. The couple is in the process of moving from their two-story home in a Dallas suburb to a single-story house they are having built in a nearby gated community. Her husband will trade in his car for a golf cart, and Juli will work almost entirely from home to make sure he stays safe. She knows they are incredibly lucky to be able to afford to build their new home from the ground up. She’s already designed it with a shower and doors wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair.Juli acknowledges that it’s impossible to know whether the changes to their health routines are working. There’s no control group, no way to assess how her husband’s disease might have progressed if they’d stuck to only medications. Right now they can afford the supplements ($150 per month), extra visits to doctors ($900 per hour twice a year), blood draws ($500 every six months), and memberships to their doctor’s practice and to a platform that promotes the protocol they are following ($3,000 per year).For Juli, the costs are justified by the change she sees in her husband. Their daily regimen gives him a sense of agency, which has alleviated some of the anxiety and depression that plagued him after his diagnosis. “It’s given him work to do—and hope,” she says. “If that’s all we take away from it, it’s worth it.”

Business

Food

Health

Replacement Interstate 5 bridge inches towards construction

Oregon and Washington lawmakers were told Monday that final federal approval could be received early next year. Skeptics worry the $7.5 billion price tag will balloon.

A replacement for the Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River could get its final environmental and federal approvals early next year and move into construction shortly thereafter, planners told a joint committee of Oregon and Washington lawmakers on Monday.But questions remain about the overall cost of the project, toll rates, whether it will be a single span or a lift bridge, and whether the project will receive a final $1 billion in federal funding.The new bridge connecting Portland and Vancouver is officially expected to cost as much as $7.5 billion. But lawmakers from the two states pressed Greg Johnson, administrator of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, Monday whether that’s still a reliable estimate, given inflation that’s driving up the cost of major construction projects.Oregon lawmakers also said planners should have provided them an updated cost estimate before the special session on transportation that began Aug. 29 and is expected to conclude Wednesday.“It would be helpful if we could get that updated cost estimate as soon as possible,” said Sen. Khanh Pham, a Portland Democrat.Construction prices continue to rise.The replacement Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, for instance, was originally expected to cost $1.9 billion. It’s now expected to cost more than $5 billion.“We are seeing this type of inflationary spiral on major projects here in the Portland area as well as nationally,” Johnson said. “We are tracking what we are seeing all over. It is not a pretty picture.”As much as $1.6 billion of the replacement bridge’s cost will be paid for by tolling. As previously announced, tolls could range from $1.55 to $4.70, depending on several factors. They’re expected to start in the spring of 2027, a year later than first announced.Also unresolved is whether the center of the bridge will be able to lift to accommodate marine traffic. Coast Guard officials previously said a fixed bridge would be too low. If the Coast Guard ultimately requires a movable span, Johnson said, it will add an estimated $400 million to the project. He expects a decision from the Coast Guard early next year.The final $1 billion in federal funding for the new bridge also isn’t expected to be secured until 2028. During the public comment portion of the meeting, civic, business and construction groups mostly spoke in favor of the project, but critics continued to question the bridge’s cost.“A safe and modern bridge is an investment in Oregon and Washington’s future,” said Khanh Tran of the Oregon Chapter of the National Association of Minority Contractors, calling the project a “generational” opportunity for disadvantaged businesses.“I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to watch infrastructure this critical in nature being put off and put off and put off,” said Dee Burch, a director of the Oregon Columbia Chapter of the Association of General Contractors, who noted a replacement interstate bridge in Minneapolis got built in just over a year, although it was a significantly smaller project that cost $234 million. But critics, including economist Joe Cortright, with the Portland policy think tank City Observatory, said lawmakers need to contend with escalating costs that he expects will be “squarely in the $10 billion range,” telling lawmakers that would mean Oregon and Washington will each need to come up with another $1 billion in funding.Cortright also questioned whether the traffic assumptions on which tolling estimates are based are inflated and whether it’s prudent to count on the final $1 billion in federal funding, given ongoing cuts to the federal budget.“Federal funding is very, very much in doubt,” Cortright said, later calling it “reckless to embark on this project” when all the funding isn’t secured.The group of lawmakers, formally known as the Joint Interim Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge, will meet again in December.If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Business

Nature

Transportation

Trump’s EPA Just Released an Infomercial for Conspiracy Theorists

“To anyone who’s ever looked up to the streaks in the sky and asked, ‘What the heck is going on?’” Lee Zeldin has an answer for you.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images You’d be forgiven if you mistook Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin’s new three-minute video released Thursday as an infomercial for some obscure science fiction literature. Shared on social media and touted as proof of the Trump administration’s “total transparency,” Zeldin’s video gives a heavy nod to conspiracy theorists, even as misinformation is fueling death threats over flooding in Texas that some extremists claim was caused by a “weather weapon.” Directing viewers to new EPA resources on “geoengineering” and “contrails,” Zeldin encourages the public to ask questions, even if those questions have already been answered over and over again. “Concerned Americans have urgent and important questions about geoengineering and contrails,” Zeldin insists, lamenting that “for years” people asking such questions were “vilified” by both the media and the government. “That era is over,” he says. “Instead of simply dismissing these questions and concerns as ‘baseless conspiracies,’ we’re meeting them head-on.” “To anyone who’s ever looked up to the streaks in the sky and asked, ‘What the heck is going on?’ Or seen headlines about private actors and even governments looking to ‘blot out the sun’ in the name of stopping global warming, we’ve endeavored to answer all of your questions,” Zeldin says. “In fact, EPA shares many of the same concerns.” In a bait-and-switch likely to frustrate any devout conspiracy theorists, however, one of the new EPA webpages actually debunks the “chemtrails” theory Zeldin appears to wink at in the video, stressing that condensation is a “normal effect” of air travel and not a result of any malicious, weather-related shenanigans. The page on geoengineering is not so unequivocal, however, listing a series of techniques meant to “cool the Earth by intentionally modifying the amount of sunlight” but mentioning only briefly that these ideas are “being studied” and not widely practiced. Solar Geoengineering has been studied by scientists for years as a way to potentially counter climate change, but it’s still largely conceptual. “Solar geoengineering, a theoretical practice which would modify the atmosphere to shade Earth’s surface by reflecting sunlight back into space, is not taking place at scale anywhere in the world,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last fall. Zeldin’s announcement seems only to have emboldened some fringe voices who had linked weather modification to the Texas floods. Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of “Jewish space lasers” fame was among the controversial figures to suggest the disaster was caused by geoengineering. She welcomed Zeldin’s announcement on Thursday and used it to push for legislation making weather modifications a “felony offense.” The CEO of Rainmaker, a California-based cloud-seeding company that had done work in Texas prior to the storms, said the company has received “in excess of 100 explicit death threats” after being falsely blamed for the disaster. Cloud seeding, which involves adding aerosols to clouds in order to clear fog or trigger precipitation, is not capable of creating storms, experts have said. Sign Up for the Intelligencer Newsletter Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Business

Climate

Government

Editorial endorsement: Elect Splitt, Greene, La Forte and Engelsman to Portland Public Schools board

Christy Splitt, Herman Greene, Virginia La Forte and Stephanie Engelsman emerge as the strongest candidates with the experience, independence and vision to lead the board of Portland Public Schools, the editorial board writes.

Portland Public Schools is decidedly not in the best of times. Roughly half of students are struggling to master reading and math, and enrollment is declining. Mistrust and anger are lingering after the 2023 teachers strike, and additional layoffs loom as expenses outpace funding increases. Yet each of the four seats on the May ballot for the district’s board of directors has attracted multiple candidates. That interest is a testament to Portlanders’ loyalty to the city’s public schools, even when there’s much that needs fixing. Good intentions alone won’t steer PPS through its challenges. The board needs members who can work collaboratively to hold the district accountable for educating students, make tough budget cuts and rekindle civic enthusiasm for the district. It needs members who are individually able to withstand pressure and pushback – from the administration, teachers union, legislators and others – to make decisions that are unequivocally centered on students and opening doors to their future. And it needs members who will advocate for more funding while recognizing the imperative to improve student achievement with the resources Portland already has.For PPS, those candidates best equipped to lead the district are Christy Splitt in Zone 1; Herman Greene in Zone 4; Virginia La Forte in Zone 5; and Stephanie Engelsman in Zone 6.While our endorsements focus just on Portland Public Schools, voters across the state are making similar decisions for their local districts. They should similarly look for candidates who demonstrate a focus on accountability, financial stewardship, commitment to student achievement and growth and, crucially, independence. Zone 1 – Southwest Portland including Wells High SchoolChristy Splitt: Splitt, 47, was appointed by Portland school board members just three months ago after former director Andrew Scott stepped down from his seat due to his move out of the Southwest Portland zone. A former teacher who has been involved in state politics as a lobbyist, staffer and environmental advocate, she works for the Oregon Department of Energy as its governmental relations coordinator. That experience navigating policy through the Legislature will be valuable as districts across the state seek greater funding to address rising labor costs as well as legacy pension contributions that sap money intended to help current students. In her short tenure on the board so far, she helped draft a framework for how the district should explore potential cost savings for the modernization of three high schools in the $1.8 billion school construction bond that’s also on the May ballot. The resolution, developed with departing board members Gary Hollands and Julia Brim-Edwards, reflects the kind of balancing act needed, weighing new high school construction with improving decrepit conditions in many elementary and middle schools.Her opponent, Ken Cavagnolo, works in artificial intelligence and notes his commitment to student-focused initiatives and higher salaries for teachers. But his campaign seems driven more by ideological stances than a deep understanding of what’s happening in PPS schools. He acknowledged in his endorsement interview that he has not volunteered at or worked with any Portland schools, nor does he have children in the system. Splitt has shown her commitment for years as a PPS parent, volunteer and PTA leader and is the clear choice.Zone 4 – Parts of North and Northeast Portland, including Roosevelt High School Herman Greene: The race for the seat representing parts of North and Northeast Portland proved to be the toughest of the four to decide. Both the incumbent, Greene, and his opponent, Rashelle Chase-Miller, are dedicated and qualified candidates who either had or currently have children in PPS.But Greene, 51, has already demonstrated his commitment to keeping students’ needs front and center, even when that means going against conventional wisdom or holding firm in contract negotiations with the powerful teachers union. He was among the first to raise alarms about the proposed cost of the new high schools on the May bond measure, urging the district to review the plans’ expenses.In October 2021, he was one of the three board members opposing the majority’s push to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for all students 12 and older to attend school – even though health authorities were not recommending such a move. He called out the potential impact of such a policy on pushing away Black students, noting the community’s long history of medical mistreatment. Ultimately, the board agreed, unanimously putting aside the well-intentioned but ill-conceived proposal.He successfully advocated for clarifying district policy to allow high schools to offer a U.S. Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program, similar to other career and technical education opportunities. Nothing would require high schools to do so, but many community members objected to the idea of a military-affiliated program. But that shows Greene’s focus on serving students – not Portland sensibilities. School districts should not be in the business of shutting down avenues to a student’s future or prescribing which career paths are politically acceptable. The district’s role is to help students explore their interests and gain the knowledge and skills to make informed decisions about their futures. And as one of the three directors at the bargaining table during the 2023 teachers strike, he fulfilled a board member’s toughest role. Despite intense pressure to give teachers concessions the district could not afford, Greene stood firm. He has correctly pointed out that without massive new state funding, the district would have to cut school days and other student services if it were to adopt caps on class sizes – one of the most expensive changes sought by teachers. While Greene has repeatedly called for more state funding, the teachers union has still targeted him for replacement as part of its “Flip the PPS Board” campaign. But had the district agreed to more of the union’s demands, ongoing cuts at PPS would be even deeper.Chase-Miller, 43, is a formidable opponent, with her background as a literacy advocate and program director for SMART Reading. She offers deeper analysis of some of the educational policy questions facing board members than Greene, who often seems to make off-the-cuff statements. She provides greater clarity in her priorities for special education and literacy initiatives in the face of budget cuts. And while she supports class size caps, she would preserve the district’s focus on smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools where such an investment makes a more meaningful difference than in high-income neighborhoods.But as a parent leader who prominently embraced the teachers union’s narrative of the strike despite public information to the contrary and whose campaign has received more than $10,000 from the teachers union, she doesn’t project the independence necessary for a board member whose constituency is students. Greene is quick to admit that he’s not politically polished, but he is comfortable advocating for the diverse needs of a broad student body, even if it goes against conventional wisdom. With the departures of Hollands and Brim-Edwards, the board is losing key accountability-minded members. Greene’s voice is an important one to keep.Zone 5 – Northeast Portland including Grant and McDaniel High SchoolsVirginia La Forte: As the mother of a current PPS high schooler and a 2024 PPS graduate, La Forte has shown up for years as a volunteer, advocate and, when needed, challenger to the district. More than a decade ago, she pressed PPS to clean up hazardous lead paint at schools. She served on the advisory group helping develop the district’s 2017 bond to rebuild three high schools and mitigate environmental hazards, including lead in schools’ drinking water. The 54-year-old marketing strategist most recently has been leading the charge for the district to install lights at the field next to Grant High School, allowing sports teams to hold more games at their home field rather than traveling off-site – missing class time as a result. Proceeds for the bond measure on the May ballot would address this need.Those efforts reflect one of La Forte’s strengths – her ability to identify, create and execute a solution to big problems. She would bring that approach to her top priorities of addressing chronic absenteeism, low literacy rates and the district’s crumbling infrastructure.Among her ideas is to explore how to braid together schools and community partners to provide full-day summer programs that offer high-dosage tutoring as well as sports and recreational opportunities. She noted the importance of trainings for teachers in literacy techniques and the need to target the causes underlying chronic absenteeism as factors in boosting reading proficiency.But she also would strengthen the board with an understanding of what accountability entails. When asked how she would hold the district superintendent accountable, she discussed the components of creating shared goals, establishing a plan, identifying metrics to measure progress and then regularly checking in with multiple groups – an often skipped step.Opponent Jorge Sanchez Bautista, 18, is a senior at McDaniel High School who has experienced first-hand some of the shortcomings of the district and the challenges borne by students as a result of insufficient resources. Part of the teachers union’s “Flip the PPS Board” slate, Bautista has been politically active on a number of social justice issues, picketed regularly with teachers during the 2023 strike and brings an affable and authentic enthusiasm. He identifies himself as a member of the Oregon Board of Education – although in actuality, he has a student advisory role – but his platform lacks the specificity, focus and depth that La Forte brings. While his commitment to engage the community to guide his decisions is a crucial part of representation, he did not show a clear vision of what he would seek to achieve. We look forward to hearing more from Bautista, who plans to attend Portland State University and, possibly, University of Oregon afterwards. But for getting big things done now, La Forte is the stronger choice.Zone 6 – Southeast Portland including Cleveland and Franklin High SchoolsStephanie Engelsman: Few board members have shown the level of rigorous oversight as Zone 6 Director Julia Brim-Edwards, who is finishing her second consecutive term on the school board. Whether they liked it or not, fellow board members knew she would come to meetings armed with specific questions derived from reading board packets and talking with administrators and community members. With Brim-Edwards not running for re-election, the candidate who will best fill her shoes and provide that scrutiny to district policies and decisions is Engelsman.Engelsman, 47, brings her experience not just as a parent of PPS elementary school kids, but also her years as a public defense attorney working with youth in juvenile cases and foster care. She notes the hardships that families face and how they connect with students’ ability to succeed in school – or even to just attend. She identifies how specific policies, such as automatic unenrollment for students who are absent without academic engagement for 10 consecutive school days, can contribute to chronic absenteeism, especially for those without the parental assistance to re-enroll. While she hopes to lower class sizes, she recognizes the necessity of ensuring Title 1 schools’ classrooms get priority in lean budget years. She said she would look for other creative ways to bring in more community resources, from student-teachers to nonprofits that can help provide that assistance and attention that current staffing levels cannot.She emphasizes the importance of doing the reading for board meetings, being prepared and asking the tough questions. She also intends to regularly visit schools – a key component of understanding issues and building trust with school community members. Her two opponents, business owner Rob Galanakis, 40, and disaster resilience consultant Simone Crowe, 37, don’t provide the same education-focused agenda that Engelsman offers. Galanakis often spoke of education as an afterthought, focusing his priorities around housing and transportation policies – areas over which the school board has limited influence and control. Crowe also lacked the familiarity with district budget concerns that are critical to strong oversight. While we did not agree with some of Engelsman’s answers, she has shown that she will bring a critical eye and informed viewpoint that the board needs. -The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board Oregonian editorials Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Therese Bottomly, Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung and John Maher. Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on issues of the day. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles. If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung, opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.

Business

Education

Energy

Suggested Viewing

Job 1

A puppet animation about employment.

Animation

Business

Music

The Wisdom To Survive: Climate Change, Capitalism & Community

This film reveals how diverse environmental problems, from climate change to species extinction to ruined ecosystems, are all ultimately rooted in the “growth at all costs” attitude that pervades modern industrial society. Through beautiful and disturbing images and interviews with ecological scholars, spiritual leaders and activists, The Wisdom to Survive argues that the survival of humanity and most living beings on the planet will not come from technology, but from a profound raising of consciousness and deep spiritual transformation of humans who finally realize that we must live differently on planet earth.

Climate

Business

Extinction

Last Chair

We pollute the environment upon which we depend. An exploration of the paradox of sustainable skiing and how we can protect the places we love.

Sustainable

Business

Conservation

The Story of a Forest

In 2004, a generation of activists arose in South Florida, carrying the passion of direct action groups like Earth First. and the deep analysis of the global justice movement that had swept the country in the preceding years. These activists sought local issues that exemplified the threats of corporate globalization. They stumbled upon a plan from biotech industry giants acting in collusion with the administration of then-Governor Jeb Bush to clear a vast swath of land in the Northeast Everglades of Florida to accommodate The Scripps Biotech Research Institute - And it was on. Over the next ten years, endless county zoning meetings were counter-balanced by dozens of civil disobedience arrests and a near-constant flow of news headlines about the battle: lawsuits, scandal, corruption, tree sits, endangered species, pranks, blockades, and a roller coaster of incremental victories followed by devastating losses for years on end. THE STORY OF A FOREST captures it all in a 1/2 hour documentary about the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition (PBCEC) and Everglades Earth First!'s (EEF!) ten-plus year campaign to stop the Scripps Biotech development, with a focus on protecting biodiversity in the Briger forest and the Florida wetlands.

Activism

Forests

Business