Yeah. Rural Oregon always gets hosed by the Portland “elite.”
I totally agree.
I’m in the midst of learning how to grow things. I think it
would be very negligent to take a pass on it now.
Water collection is my next goal. I want to be
self-sufficient.
To those west of the Cascades, the eastern part of Oregon is less than nothing.
The prevailing winds blow any ag pollution to the east, not even toward Portland, Eugene or Salem, so those liberal retards aren’t even affected. They just want to punish hard working Oregonians.
This will give more impetus to “Greater Idaho.”
They don’t need no stinking Food
what is terrifying is Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act/”Green New Deal” is considered to be brilliant by veteran ABC Australia “journalist”, Geraldine Doogue, and her climate alarmist guests:
AUDIO: 15min42sec: 18 March: ABC Australia: Tackling Transitions: US subsidies
Presenter: Geraldine Doogue
The US has turbo-charged the clean energy transition raising concern that it will lure capital, talent and tech through hundreds of billions of dollars worth of subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act. Can Australia compete or benefit? Guests: Kane Thorton, Chief Executive, Clean Energy Council and Dr Alan Finkel, former Chief Scientist and strategic adviser to the Australian government.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/tackling-transitions/102113090
the former Chief Scientist, Finkel, has been at the centre of a controversy for years:
CHIEFSCIENTIST.GOV.AU: Clarifying the Chief Scientist’s position on reducing carbon emissions
Saturday, 01 December 2018; last updated 18 Dec 2020
In response to an article published across multiple news sources 2–4 December 2018, Dr Finkel wrote a letter to the editors to clarify his position on reducing Australia’s carbon emissions. His response, which was published by several of the newspapers, is available below.
Dear Editor,
On Monday 3 December you published an opinion piece by Andrew Bolt titled ‘Less marching, more learning’* which included a reference to me ‘admitting’ that we “could stop all Australia’s emissions – junk every car, shut every power station, put a cork in every cow – and the effect on the climate would still be ‘virtually nothing’”.
Those are Andrew Bolt’s words, not mine, and they are a complete misrepresentation of my position. They suggest that we should do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions, a stance I reject, and I wish to correct the record.
On 1 June 2017 I attended a Senate Estimates hearing where Senator Ian Macdonald asked if the world was to reduce its carbon emissions by 1.3 per cent, which is approximately Australia’s rate of emissions, what impact would that make on the changing climate of the world. My response was that the impact would be virtually nothing but I immediately continued by explaining that doing nothing is not a position that we can responsibly take because emissions reductions is a little bit like voting, in that if everyone took the attitude that their vote does not count and no-one voted, we would not have a democracy...
https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2018/12/clarifying-the-chief-scientists-position-on-reducing-carbon-emissions