Search sponsored by Coast Marketplace
Home Opinion Letters to the Editor

Letter: Carbon sequestration not a substitute for cap-and-trade

Published on February 27, 2018 9:15AM

This letter concerns two articles from The Daily Astorian, “Hundreds besiege Oregon Capitol for cap on greenhouse gases” (Feb. 13), and “Carbon sequestration proposed as ‘cap-and-trade’ alternative” (Feb. 14), about Senate Bill 1070, the Clean Energy Jobs Bill.

On Feb. 12, I attended the Clean Energy Jobs Bill lobbying day in Salem. It was the largest gathering of citizens, from all over the state, concerned about passing a bill, they had seen in years. After the rally, groups visited their state senator and representatives. Sen. Betsy Johnson was not available to meet us.

Carbon sequestration is not a substitute for cap-and-trade. The development of the science of carbon sequestration is in its infancy. It will take years to develop it to where it can be utilized effectively. The Capitol Bureau reporter, Mateusz Perkowski, should have done research before he wrote his article.

Cap-and-trade is what we can do now, with successful tools and training programs already in place in our state, to deal with climate change. Oregon lawmakers have been working on a cap-and-trade policy for more than a decade. Contact state Rep. Deborah Boone; she can give you the whole history.

I’ll refer you to a video of a member of the Canadian Parliament from Ontario, Glen Murray at This heavily industrialized province is participating in a system of cap-and-trade with partners in nine Northeastern states, California and Quebec.

SB 1070 would only involve polluting industries already regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Small businesses and agriculture are not affected. This is an important, well-researched bill.

Pamela Mattson McDonald



Share and Discuss


User Comments