{"id":21606,"date":"2021-08-11T13:16:20","date_gmt":"2021-08-11T18:16:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=21606"},"modified":"2025-12-03T12:33:56","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T17:33:56","slug":"oregons-climate-protection-program-must-live-up-to-its-name","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2021\/08\/11\/oregons-climate-protection-program-must-live-up-to-its-name\/","title":{"rendered":"Oregon\u2019s Climate Protection Program must live up to its name"},"content":{"rendered":"

As Oregon faces another out of control wildfire season, the state\u2019s lead environmental agency, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), just released regulatory language<\/a> for its Climate Protection Program, a program intended to be a pillar of the state\u2019s strategy to meet the ambitious climate goals Governor Brown committed the state to in 2020<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The stakes are high for this critical rulemaking, which will decide whether Oregon truly follows through on its climate commitments. In a recent New York Times op-ed<\/a>, Governor Brown wrote that Oregon is \u201cworking to lead the way\u201d on climate change. With the latest IPCC report<\/a> underscoring how climate change is affecting every inhabited region across the globe and how many damaging impacts are accelerating, we are at a moment where climate leadership is desperately needed.<\/p>\n

But at this critical moment, the DEQ\u2019s proposed Climate Protection Program falls far short of what we expect from effective climate action. There\u2019s still time for the program to be strengthened as the public comment period for the program is only just beginning, but Oregon\u2019s decision-makers must ensure that the Climate Protection Program will deliver the swift, equitable and ambitious climate action that Oregon needs.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

What will it take for Oregon\u2019s program to be successful? <\/strong><\/h3>\n

It needs to hit these three marks:<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. It must be ambitious<\/strong> enough to ensure that the state hits its science-based, economy-wide targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The state legislature and Governor Brown have already committed to these targets, and Governor Brown\u2019s executive order<\/a> from last year made it clear that state agencies must use all available authority in order to achieve them. Now Oregon needs strong rules that will make sure that these targets are attainable, and not merely aspirational.<\/p>\n

2. It must include a binding limit on climate pollution<\/strong>, with quantifiable and enforceable results. Otherwise, Oregon will fall short of its goals, therein missing a huge opportunity to protect a stable climate, create family-wage jobs in the clean energy sector, and create a strong climate policy roadmap other states can follow.<\/p>\n

3. It must be equitable<\/strong>, delivering outcomes based on input from the communities that have historically been, and continue to be, most directly impacted by climate and air pollution: communities of color, tribal communities, and low-income Oregonians. DEQ previously pledged to create a Climate Protection Program that places equity at its core \u2014 but Oregon\u2019s policy is likely to provide value to polluters that far outweighs the tangible climate investments potentially available to communities.<\/p>\n

Oregon-based environmental justice and tribal groups are raising the alarm about the lack of equity in the program\u2019s design as it currently stands. In a joint letter to DEQ<\/a>, Oregon Environmental Justice groups Rogue Climate, Verde, Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA), and Coalition of Communities of Color wrote:<\/p>\n

\u201cThroughout this rulemaking, DEQ has pledged to give at least as much weight to equity as it gives to controlling costs for businesses in deciding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the draft rules do not reflect that commitment to equity.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

If Oregon wants to boldly lead on climate, DEQ\u2019s proposal must be stronger.<\/h3>\n

Here\u2019s why the current proposal falls short:<\/p>\n