The county is Multnomah, which is where Portland is. So this type of activist lawsuit is no surprise. It’s amazing to me that officials are spending time and money on this ideological fight instead of focusing on the real problems that affect Portland citizens and businesses every single day such as drug abuse, encampments, property crime, physical assaults, and general blight. It’s also strange, or maybe purposeful, that the city does nothing about political violence in the city, particularly from groups like Rose City Antifa. The city used to be beautiful, safe, and was very attractive, but things have changed and they need to be fixed ASAP.
Regarding the 2021 ‘heat dome’ event - there isn’t convincing science that attributes climate change for that one-off event. The subsequent few years have not had something similar. UW Atmospheric Science professor Cliff Mass wrote about this previously (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-ca...) and demonstrated that it is most likely a rare event caused by a mix of overlapping factors and not causally linked to climate change. Other studies have claimed in their title or abstract that this event was caused by climate change, but when you read the actual paper, you’ll see them admit that they’re making a probabilistic guess and that it is also possible that it is just a rare event. Unfortunately journalists have recycled those headlines without any critical thought around it.
All that said, I do think there is something to the argument that fossil fuel companies (and many other industries) have been deceitful in their marketing and public campaigns as to the impact of their industry. The plastics industry (which is also fossil fuels driven) also comes to mind. But the reality is that the choice to use fossil fuels is also one made individually, by every citizen. It seems odd to me to try to blame the fossil fuel industry when it’s all of us, and when the real problem is just over consumption (regardless of the material in question).
I honestly think at this point, Climate Change as a whole is being used as a club to try and force the poor / proletariat class to behave a certain way, while giving the billionaires / 1% (or 0.1%) class carte blanche to do whatever they want, perhaps with a carbon tax on top.
I want to see the natural environment thrive, and health for humanity as a whole. Rather than fighting the nebulous 'climate change', we should be going directly to the source and ensuring environmental pollution / hazards are properly managed directly. Instead we are playing these weird abstraction games, where we are allegedly fighting an invisible enemy.
Whatever politician pulls away from the 'climate change' / 'carbon tax' narrative, and actually provides tangible solutions to the environmental / poulltion crisis has my vote at this point...
I don't need billionaires flying from city to city discussing how best to manage cow farts and reduce meat consumption. I need tangible changes to how meat itself is produced (reducing the cruelty, and improving the environment in turn) and factories prevented from dumping forever chemicals in our water, food, etc.
I'm not going down the 'climate change' is or isn't real rabbit hole - I am just so effing sick of it being the only target that matters. If industry is the problem, lets fix the industry. If agriculture is the problem (big ag anyway), lets fix the problem.
Instead we are expected to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just pledge allegience to the climate change cult.
Clear air, clean water, healthy food etc. can be strived for without all the theatrics and doomsday scenarios -- and you don't have to try so hard to 'convert' people to your cause. Just ask people: Do you want 'forever chemicals' in your drinking water? Me neither. Let's fix that. Do you want pollution spewing directly into your breathing space? Me neither. Let's fix that.
I know that gets a bit hard when you are looking at global trade - but I still think this outlook can be used to address the issue globally.
Instead of common sense individual measures, we are left where its this game of 'all or nothing' and if you aren't on the side of 'nothing' you are the carbon that needs to be reduced.
Regarding the 2021 ‘heat dome’ event - there isn’t convincing science that attributes climate change for that one-off event. The subsequent few years have not had something similar. UW Atmospheric Science professor Cliff Mass wrote about this previously (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-ca...) and demonstrated that it is most likely a rare event caused by a mix of overlapping factors and not causally linked to climate change. Other studies have claimed in their title or abstract that this event was caused by climate change, but when you read the actual paper, you’ll see them admit that they’re making a probabilistic guess and that it is also possible that it is just a rare event. Unfortunately journalists have recycled those headlines without any critical thought around it.
All that said, I do think there is something to the argument that fossil fuel companies (and many other industries) have been deceitful in their marketing and public campaigns as to the impact of their industry. The plastics industry (which is also fossil fuels driven) also comes to mind. But the reality is that the choice to use fossil fuels is also one made individually, by every citizen. It seems odd to me to try to blame the fossil fuel industry when it’s all of us, and when the real problem is just over consumption (regardless of the material in question).